Debunking Bjorn Lomborg: Part II

Lomborg misrepresents possible sea-level rise

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 10:23 AM on 15 Sep 2007

Read more about: climate | climate science | books

Lomborg is a champion cherry-picker when he isn't just getting his facts wrong, as I argued in Part I. He has a deceptively misleading -- and outright erroneous -- discussion of sea-level-rise projections in Cool It. Let's start with a few all-too-typical howlers:

Antarctica is generally soaking up more water than Greenland is shedding, as the IPCC predicts. The IPCC estimates that the very worst additional increase to be expected from Greenland could be 8 inches over the century, but this is possible only in a model where CO2 levels rise two to four times more than expected by 2100 (p. 64).

No, no, and no. First, as was widely reported back in 2006 -- and thus well known to Lomborg while writing Cool It -- the first-ever gravity survey of the entire Antarctic ice sheet by NASA and German scientists using a satellite launched in 2002 found that "Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005." That's as much water as the U.S. consumes in three months.

Second, the IPCC clearly states "models [of sea level rise] used to date do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedbacks nor do they include the full effect of changes in ice sheet flow." Indeed, the IPCC goes out of its way to make clear that its projections exclude "future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow" -- changes we are already seeing in both Greenland and Antarctica ($ub. req'd). So the "very worst additional increase" possible from Greenland is much more than eight inches. The IPCC explicitly says "larger values cannot be excluded."

And this "very worst additional increase" does not require "CO2 levels rise two to four times more than expected by 2100." It applies to the standard range of IPCC scenarios -- and as I have written, since 2000, carbon dioxide emissions have grown faster than any IPCC model had projected.

This all goes beyond cherry-picking and sloppiness -- it is outright deception. And Cool It has much more intellectually dishonesty.

For instance, Lomborg can't get enough of the IPCC for sea level rise (pp. 60-61):

In its 2007 report, the UN estimates that sea levels will rise about a foot over the rest of the century ... sea-level increase by 2050 will be about 5 inches.

Thanks to this modest sea-level rise, and the possibility that developing countries will have the money in the future to protect their land with levees, he concludes, "a rich Bangladesh will lose only 0.000034 percent of its present dry-land area" (p. 48). No worries, mate!

Most of the time, however, Lomborg doesn't buy the U.N. consensus at all. For instance, one of his central arguments is that global warming will save millions of lives: "heat deaths will not outweigh avoided cold deaths, not in 2050, 2100, or even 2200" (p. 39). Yet after reviewing all of the literature, not just the handful of studies that Lomborg cherry-picks, the IPCC states with "high confidence":

Studies in temperate areas ["mainly in industrialized countries"] have shown that climate change is projected to bring some benefits, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure. Overall it is expected that these benefits will be outweighed by the negative health effects of rising temperatures worldwide, especially in developing countries.

Snap! It is intellectually dishonest to devote several pages to cherry-picking studies that disagree with the IPCC consensus on net health effects because you don't like its scientific conclusion, while then devoting several pages to hiding behind [a misstatement of] the U.N. consensus on sea-level rise because you know a lot reasonable people think the U.N. wildly underestimated the upper end of the range, and you want to attack Al Gore for worrying about 20-foot sea-level rise.

On this blog, I have tried to be clear what I believe with my earlier three-part series: Since sea level, arctic ice, and most other climate change indicators have been changing faster than most IPCC models projected and since the IPCC neglects key amplifying carbon cycle feedbacks, the IPCC reports almost certainly underestimate future climate impacts. This is similar to a point just made in Science.

Lomborg, however, doesn't just cherry-pick -- he misrepresents what the IPCC said, and he misstates the facts about the ice sheets and his (or at least Denmark's) beloved Greenland. One sentence is especially garbled:

Even with the most extreme estimates of Greenland melting over a couple of years [sic!], a sea-level rise would take one thousand years.

I cannot figure out what Lomborg was trying to say. Is he saying it would take 1000 years for Greenland to melt and raise sea levels seven meters? That is an estimate based on models that don't include the kind of rapid ice sheet dynamics that are already occurring.

While I don't consider it an extreme estimate based on my interviews with leading climate scientists, NASA's James Hansen has repeatedly pointed out that in past times of rapid warming, sea levels have risen one meter ever 20 years, and could rise several meters within a century -- the same prediction Gore makes, which Lomborg ridicules. Of course, Lomborg has not a single reference to the work of America's top climate scientist.

I would also note that if we are considering adaptation, the rate sea levels are changing is as important as the absolute jump in sea levels by 2100. An important Science article from early this year used empirical data from last century to project that sea levels could be up to five feet higher in 2100, and rising six inches a decade! The author notes "all that such a rise would require is that the linear relation of the rate of sea-level rise and temperature, which was found to be valid in the 20th century, remains valid in the 21st century."

But how do you adapt to seas rising six inches a decade? Even if you are a hypothetical rich Bangladesh rather than an actually poor Bangladesh? The first meter of sea-level rise would flood 17 percent of Bangladesh, displacing tens of millions of people, and reducing its rice-farming land by 50 percent. It would inundate over 13,000 square miles of this country.

Even if the chances of this catastrophic outcome were 5 percent -- rather than, say, 50 percent, as suggested by the work of Hansen and others -- it would be enough to warrant strong action today. But Lomborg simply refuses to consider plausible worst-case scenarios, even probable bad-case scenarios, which is his biggest flaw, as we will see in Part III.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For story: Debunking Bjorn Lomborg: Part II
27 Comments | Post a Comment

Yeah

Thats the scariest thing about this IPCC report.

That it ignores most of the potential sea level rise inputs.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 2:45 PM on 15 Sep 2007

Scary thing is we do not know

Sure, Bjorn needs to be lambasted for cheery-picking and fallible logic, but the fact remains that we do not have any clarity or absolute definition about the level, rate, and spatial extent to sea level rise. By definition, we have no knowledge about the future. So Bjorn is entitled to his views because nobody else's has the benefit of fact. Sorry, but somebody had to day that.

Wish-casting is possibly the most ignominious of any way of thinking though: clearly, Bjorn wants things to turn out a certain way. This is against all scientific principle. However, it is about as bad at the people who predict catastrophic rises, so as to teach us some kind of perverted lesson.

Just remember, good science always follows some really horrible, bad science.

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 7:54 PM on 15 Sep 2007

Perhaps.

But the trick being that we can't possibly expect a linear melting rate, or that if you have a giant glacier or iceshelf collapse within a day.

It's like trying to guess when we will have our next volcano erruption.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 10:44 PM on 15 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

Wrong. Totally Wrong.

Sammie: " By definition, we have no knowledge about the future."

No, astrologers and shamans might not, but scientists do. They have no certainty but to equate that with "no knowledge" is just bunkum. Anyone who doesn't think we have any knowledge about the future would never drive a car, get in an elevator, or an airplane.

The 5% Project

by JMG at 12:27 AM on 16 Sep 2007

Sam, is Lomborg a credible scientist or a hack?

"By definition, we have no knowledge about the future. So Bjorn is entitled to his views because nobody else's has the benefit of fact. Sorry, but somebody had to day that." -- Sam

Yes, science should privilege robust debate. But you can't have that if one side's position is grounded in flagrant hackery. The discussion becomes like the Mad Hatter's tea party. In the case of global warming, dumbing down the debate can be advantageous to vested interests because it slows societal responses. Of course, what's good for vested interests may be disastrous for future generations, particularly when time is of the essence.

What is a scientific hack? Someone who consistently plays fast and loose with facts, distorting them into tangled pretzels that raise eyebrows among peer-reviewed journals. Someone whose questionable rationalizations seem to go hand in hand with overly close ties (e.g., economic and/or social) to vested interests.

Sam, are you arguing that Lomborg is a credible scientist rather than a hack?

by Steven T at 8:55 AM on 16 Sep 2007

He's a hack but, don't use that argument

He is a hack, most scientific publications usually have an avalanche showing how his work is critically flawed each time he makes a new one.

The trick being that you should focus more attention on attack his argument than resorting to attacking him as a person.

Since it's usually rather easy to brush off ad hominem if you don't want to listen to it.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 9:23 AM on 16 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

That said

No, Lomborg is not a peer reviewed scientist as far as I'm aware.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 9:24 AM on 16 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

Adapting to rising seas

Joseph Romm wrote in the original post: But how do you adapt to seas rising

...Build dikes, move inland, seastead, or ocean-colonize.

Joseph Romm wrote in the original post: The first meter of sea-level rise would flood 17 percent of Bangladesh [...] reducing its rice-farming land by 50 percent.

Why would one farm on land, instead of produce in indoor-factories?

by Nucbuddy at 10:31 AM on 16 Sep 2007

Netherlands Paradigm?

I do not defend Bjorn as a "scientist" because unlike a registered professional engineer, there aren't any credentials - other than your peer review, publications, and acceptance among the community. I agree many would consider the man a flake. But in the spirit of Benjamin Franklin, we're all scientists unless we reject that, right?

The last post seems to smack of the "Netherlands Paradigm" where we can geo-engineer our way out of global sea level rise by building dikes and other hard structures. OK, break out the maps and history books, the Netherlands is a very small coastal plain north of Belgium that has been around for centuries. That certainly isn't a model for the tens of thousands of miles of coastlines that would be impacted by a sea level rise of more than 5 feet - nevermind tropical cyclones and tsunamis on top of that.

But I actually moved to the coast to watch it. Sea level rise is NOT an issue now. Erosion and subsidence ARE. In general, most areas along the northern Gulf of Mexico are sinking faster than the sea is rising. Now that's a problem. /sam

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 11:05 AM on 16 Sep 2007

knowledge about the future

Sorry, JMG. For perhaps the first time ever, I find that I disagree with you. What Sammie was saying about Bjorn Lomborg's forecasts -- if that is the right word -- of sealevel rise, to the effect that they cannot strictly be refuted because nobody really knows how much sealevels will rise (if I understand him correctly), is perhaps not very helpful. But his principle is correct: we do not and cannot know the future. ("By definition" is not the best way to put it, but we can let that pass; we understand what he means.)

On the other hand, the kind of soundly reasoned speculation about the future which you refer to in your counter-assertion does not, I think, deserve to be called "knowledge." We do not "know" that the airplane or the elevator that we are about to board will carry us and not fall to the ground with us inside. But it is extremely reasonable and parsimonious to believe so, so much so that to believe otherwise would be either foolish or perverse. Still, to act with that kind of assurance, as (as you rightly say) we do all the time, is not equivalent to our "knowing" the future.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 11:48 AM on 16 Sep 2007

The Dutch as a model for modern lowlandism

Sam Wells wrote: The last post seems to smack of the "Netherlands Paradigm" where we can geo-engineer our way out of global sea level rise by building dikes and other hard structures. [...] the Netherlands is a very small coastal plain north of Belgium that has been around for centuries.

Yes, it is indeed interesting that very-poor people -- the poorness of whom is unequalled anywhere on Earth today -- were able to build effective sea-dikes using 12th-century technology, and that those same people and their descendents managed to thrive thusly below sea-level for circa 900 years.

by Nucbuddy at 11:59 AM on 16 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

Lowlandism

Thanks Canis I write fast and take notes later - I edit and edit and edit and posting here doesn't allow you to do that ... my point was two, six, or twenty by what years? That's fairly hard to nail down when talking about 2050 and forecasts like that.

As to "lowlandism," you might want to check on the history of the Netherlands - even Wikipedia has some rudimentary stuff. What happened was that North and South Holland used to have coastal sandy dunes, and the inland areas were elevated peat bogs. So way lack like you say, they locals drained the upland peat bogs. Over time, subsidence caused the land to sink by many meters, causing extensive flooding.

Therefore, the response was to fix an environmental disaster of epic proportions - not exactly a model for the US, I should say. So feudal lords and churches got together to create dikes, dams, bridges, locks, and all that good stuff you can even see in places today. While some of their tidal hydro power is truly impressive, and can protect certain shorelines from storm surges, the fact remains that it was predicated on a failed strategy to drain the bogs.

And like Venice or New Orleans, it will continue sinking into the sandy mud. The sea level rises a few millimeters, it sinks by a centimeter. That is because much of the alluvial mud carried down by the rivers is thixotropic - meaning like catsup. /sam

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 12:31 PM on 16 Sep 2007

Not a philosopher

Canis, I'm just a dumb engineer, so debates about what it means "to know" something make me tired. I tried the History of Science audio course from The Teaching Company and ended up asking for my money back because it was essentially nothing but a history of trying to address that exact question rather than a history of science (it only occasionally made reference to science).

To me, predictions that you're willing to stake your life on (I will get in this [car, plane, elevator] because I predict that ...; I will eat this food because I predict that ...) are operationally indistinguishable from knowledge.

We can agree that all knowledge is tentative and subject to revision -- sometimes the elevators drop, the cars explode, the planes crash, and the food poisons you.

But to say that we have no knowledge of the future when discussing a book intended to sow deceit about that precise question seems to me to be going much too far. I'm sure there's a specialized sense of the word "knowledge" under which the statement holds, but I'm not buying it for use here.

The 5% Project

by JMG at 12:52 PM on 16 Sep 2007

How about we compare it to

How about we compare it to New Orleans.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 1:03 PM on 16 Sep 2007

The medieval Dutch showed how easy it was to adapt

Sam Wells wrote: As to "lowlandism," you might want to check on the history of the Netherlands -- the fact remains that it was predicated on a failed strategy to drain the bogs.

How lowlandism was predicated is irrelevant. Body-builders frequently commit the "failed strategy" of working their muscles with heavy weights. Their muscles, in turn, adapt to this "failed strategy" by growing bigger and stronger.

The facts -- relevant to Joseph Romm's question at the top of this page, "But how do you adapt to seas rising" -- remain that the Netherlands came to be below-sea-level, and that the local population -- despite being fantastically-poor and technologically-bankrupt in comparison to modern Bangladeshis and literally any other population currently-existing on the planet today -- successfully adapted.

by Nucbuddy at 1:35 PM on 16 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

"dumb"; "poorness"; Venice

JMG, this cannot be happening!; must I disagree with you a second time in the same day? Of course you are not "dumb"! You are one of the smartest people writing in Gristmill.

Moreover, one might think that as an engineer, you would want to understand the nature and function of all the tools at hand. And that includes words and concepts.

True, philosophy has little or no practicality. It would not be as much fun as it is, if it did.

Anyway, I entirely agree with what you are saying about Lomborg.

Also:

Is Nucbuddy being sarcastic when he refers to the "poorness" of the Netherlands? (N.B.: The usual noun associated with the adjective "poor" is "poverty.") The Dutch are nowadays just about the richest nation per capita in the world -- quite at the opposite extreme from Bangladesh. But already in the Middle Ages, the trading cities of the Low Countries, along with the great Italian cities, were the greatest centers of wealth in Western Europe. And it is extremely myopic to underestimate pre-industrial resourcefulness, and pre-industrial technologies.

Also:

Speaking of great Italian cities, Venice is fixing to become the biggest cultural catastrophe due to rising sealevel. There is a documentary from a few years ago about the destructive floods that periodically afflict Venice, and proposed options for saving it, which is shown every now and then on PBS in the Nova series. And in fact one proposal, installing dikes that lie on the sea floor at the entrances to the Lagoon, and which can be elevated to seal off the Lagoon during storms in the Adriatic, is in principle based on a pair of swinging dikes that seal off the harbor of Rotterdam when there is a storm in the North Sea.

But it seems there are problems with everything that has been proposed. My guess is that, what with sealevel rise due to global warming, which I do not think is explicitly referred to in the documentary, but which obviously makes Venice's peril all the more grave, the Italians are going to seal off the Lagoon permanently. But that will create an environmental problem of a different sort: The waters of the Lagoon will cease to drain as they always have, and the rich ecosystem will be destroyed.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 2:17 PM on 16 Sep 2007

The wealth of moderns, in relation to medievals

Caniscandida wrote: Is Nucbuddy being sarcastic when he refers to the "poorness" of the Netherlands?

...Probably not, since Nucbuddy nowhere in this thread referred to unqualified "poorness" of the Netherlands.

Caniscandida wrote: The Dutch are nowadays just about the richest nation per capita in the world

...It is interesting that the Dutch got that way while continuously-repelling the sea for 900 years.

Caniscandida wrote: quite at the opposite extreme from Bangladesh.

Is the present Netherlands richer than the Bangladesh of decades hence?

Caniscandida wrote: But already in the Middle Ages, the trading cities of the Low Countries, along with the great Italian cities, were the greatest centers of wealth in Western Europe.

Really? How much did AISI Type 316 structural steel and ASTM C150 Type I Portland cement cost? How about PVA structural concrete-reinforcing fibers and Xypex expansive concrete-waterproofing crystals? How about AutoCAD and desktop and laptop computers to run it on?

by Nucbuddy at 3:35 PM on 16 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

The Dutch

Not only are the Dutch rather well off financially, they are the tallest people in the world now, a good indicator of health all in all. Histories discuss Jefferson towering over the Europeans; now Americans look up to lots of folks.

I always think of the Dutch when thinking about the resource curse. Holland is not particularly richly endowed with natural resources, so they became skilled mariners, explorers, and traders. So too Japan. Compare with the OPEC nations, who are scarred by a deep inequality and whose per capita wealth is already plummeting even before the oil runs out.

The 5% Project

by JMG at 7:42 PM on 16 Sep 2007

Calling a spade a spade

"He is a hack, most scientific publications usually have an avalanche showing how his work is critically flawed each time he makes a new one. The trick being that you should focus more attention on attack his argument than resorting to attacking him as a person." -- GreyFlcn

I understand the idea of not calling someone names. However, it seems to me that it is important to "out" Lomborg for his end runs around rigorous scientific process. To not do so on such a highly visible issue will contribute to the unraveling of the scientific community's intellectual integrity. If Lomborg can get away with it, then anyone else can. At any rate, pointing out that Lomborg's arguments have not stood up to the standard scrutiny the average person would expect of a scientist strikes me as a "nonpersonal" rebuttal if framed correctly. Indeed, Lomborg's writings can be used as a "teachable moment" for how science shoulud work.

In addition, I do not believe that you can win Lomborg in the court of public opinion if you focus on responding to him point by point. Even the middle brow (e.g., journalists and policy wonks) will not be able to follow the nuances of each side, so will tend to be at least partially swayed by who is more "charismatic" . . . and perhaps easier to understand. In other words, "hot talk" will tend to win, particularly if it is wrapped in the flag of faux scientific legitimacy.

I don't mean to suggest that there is only one way to respond to Lomborg. If you think a point by point rebuttal is useful, I wouldn't suggest that you stop. However, others need to explicitly and repeatedly call him on his underlying method of operation.

by Steven T at 7:49 PM on 16 Sep 2007

Listen to Him Defend the Book

I was much more able to understand and thus refute Mr. Lomborg's thesis after listening to a recent radio interview (mp3). To listen, go to www.eutopianow.org and then find the Lomborg link under New and Noteworthy Media. Stay well.

by eutopianow at 8:52 PM on 16 Sep 2007

Despite all the Models and Predictions

The signals we are receiving almost daily point toward more rapid melting and sea level rise than many predicted earlier.

How can any nation get richer while coastal ecosystems, the nurseries of many ocean fisheries and the barriers against coastal erosion, are being inundated all around the world? There may be a few very high value areas protected at tremendous cost but 99.9999% of the coastal areas will become sacrificial landscapes preserved only in photographs and memories.

To believe that we are going to be able to adapt to rapid climate change by being more prosperous in the future is being dangerously delusional. These people have a cornucopian vision rising out their asses.

by justlou at 4:32 AM on 17 Sep 2007

I have seen Bjorn Lomborg...

...and he is us. Just reading through this thread of comments reminded me how often we use cherry-picked data and favour our own pet "particular"-case scenarios in sorting through information.

I urge everyone to go back over the coments--here or anywhere--and count the assumptions, the unsupported assertions, the clear preferences for various imagined environmental outcomes. For example: "99.9999% of the coastal areas will become sacrificial landscapes..."

We can't have debate without sloppy oversimplifications and implicit assumptions. But we should probably strive to. I think the best thing to do is what Joseph does: address the issues directly. Reading this post has helped me clarify an issue that is still a mass of confusing, disparate information to me, so I have reason to thank the Lomborg. And whatever his factual failings, I've always found his points about adaptation strategies and his economic rationales thought-provoking if not convincing.

by Jones at 6:01 AM on 17 Sep 2007

A Bowl of Cherries

Yes, but the IPCC has left so many cherries to pick through it's crackpot science, half baked ideas and spurious data.

The Bailo Model, the only one created using post-20th century technology, predicts:

A lot more warming
Precipitous drops in sea levels
People having more fun due to better weather.

Meanwhile -- where are those "record hurricanes" again:

NHC sees no immediate Atlantic storm activity
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN17465221 ...

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Tropical activity is no longer likely in the northwestern Caribbean or eastern Gulf of Mexico over the next couple of days, the U.S. National Hurricane Center said in a report Monday.

by jabailo at 10:03 AM on 17 Sep 2007

Coastal Implications

Well if it takes a Lomborg to make people think, to agree or disagree, at least he elevated the topic for discussion.

Think about the US, where perhaps 50% of the population lives within 50 miles of the coast (this might be old hat, but close). If second homes for the summer beach crowd is included, I bet the numbers would be even higher. So we're talking billions of dollars of real estate and property that over the next decades, will start slipping into the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific. Just five miles of a barrier island where I live is valued at nearly 5 billion dollars. The average height of our "sand spit" is approximately 5 feet (South Padre Island, TX).

Can you imagine that just going "poof," never mind Venice, Rotterdam, New Orleans, NYC, Miami, and elsewhere? I don't think one can build their way out of the problem except in very special cases, which means closing off bay systems - but surely not right on the ocean side. Yes, after the 1900 Hurricane that struck Galveston, the entire town was raised behind a 15-foot sea wall. Could this be done for an entire country? Is it worth it?

Or should we take that money and put it into reducing CO2, and let some of the property simply slip gracefully into the ocean?

I'm fresh out of answers, but some scientists say the sea-level rise process is already happening and we should be worried right now, and not put the discussion off for another ten years ...
sam

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 10:07 AM on 17 Sep 2007

80 percent Red States...Hooray!

Think about the US, where perhaps 50% of the population lives within 50 miles of the coast (this might be old hat, but close).

The good news is that most of them are Democrats.

by jabailo at 10:48 AM on 17 Sep 2007
[ Parent ]

Jones

"clear preferences for various imagined environmental outcomes. For example: "99.9999% of the coastal areas will become sacrificial landscapes..." " Jones

The point I was trying to make is that if global warming does happen more rapidly than predicted by models and vast coastal areas are threatened by extensive flooding, the vast majority of these will never be protected. Part of this would be due to an overall impoverishment of civilization accompanying global warming and resource depletion. Our capacity to protect and mitigate would be greatly reduced from our relatively prosperous state today.

by justlou at 11:14 AM on 17 Sep 2007

Netherlands

The point about the Netherlands: a large part of that country was indeed reclaimed from the sea. So why are they now building floating homes? Did they lose their engineering skills or become impoverished? No: it is because they know that SLR (and the ramping up of the hydrologic cycle leading to increased flooding) will be an enormous problem for them. So after centuries of winning the battle with the North Sea, they have finally capitulated. Video at http://www.reuters.com/news/video/videoStory?videoId=6519 ...

"Dutch policymakers are figuring on a rise in sea level of around 30 inches in the coming century regardless of the ongoing scientific debate on the causes and likely impact of global warming." -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20689966/

...from the people who brought you Edam cheese, windmills, and
-- more recently -- the Carver: http://www.flytheroad.com/

by xchopp at 3:49 PM on 18 Sep 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.