Time Travel and Causation in the Climate Debate

Scene from the 60's TV show "The Time Tunnel" - click for info

Guest post by Craig Loehle, Ph.D.

A fundamental principle of physics is that causation is unidirectional in time. An event must follow its cause. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but you will soon see why I begin with such a simple statement. Outside of temporal anomalies in sci-fi movies, time travel is forbidden by thermodynamics, among other reasons (and not just because you could kill yourself at an earlier time and create a multiple-worlds crisis which calls for Spock to give future technologies to past counterparts of Scotty…).

In the climate change debate, by contrast to physics, the force of GHGs and human evil is so great that it transcends time. Bad things happen BEFORE their cause. It is simply amazing.

Let’s establish the time frame for the analysis. When can we say that human activities began to influence the climate in a significant way? According to the IPCC it is sometime after 1950 (in their attribution section). Before that, whatever small effect GHGs and land use change had on the climate was not detectable because too small—remember, GHGs are rising, it is not a black/white single event like shooting someone but a matter of quantity. Specific attribution studies give 1950 (Thompson, D.W.J., J.M. Wallace, P.D. Jones, and J.J. Kennedy. 2009. Identifying signatures of natural climate variability in time series of global-mean surface temperature: Methodology and insights, J. Clim., 22, 6120-6141, doi:10.1175/2009JCLI3089.1) or 1960 (Hegerl, G.C., P.D. Jones, and T.P. Barnett. 2001. Effect of observational sampling error on the detection of anthropogenic climate change, J. Clim., 14, 198-207) as dates for detectability. And yet, these dates are ignored in much of the debate. I will note 3 cases here.

First, the IPCC implicitly counts warming that occured before 1950. In calculating trends, it lists the 100 year 20th Century trends, and leaves it implicit that all of the warming over this period is human-caused. It never explains the warming pre-1950 or clearly disavows it. In the public debate also, the entire 100+ year warming is noted as alarming (“the world has warmed 0.8 deg C during the past 100 years” is given as “proof” of how bad it is), but the first 50 years of this could not be human caused.

Second, particularly in blog debates or press commentaries, the melting of glaciers is given as indisputable evidence for warming (often in responding to concerns like the CRU email scandal or the surfacestations project). Let’s consider the well-documented case of glaciers in Europe. During the LIA glaciers advanced and crushed many farms and villages. Between 1750 and 1800 many began to recede. They were thus receding for between 150 and 200 years before human activity could have been the cause, yet this melting is taken as proof of AGW.

This assumption is once again based on time travel: the human impact since 1950 melted glaciers beginning in 1750. In some cases it is argued that the melting in recent decades is human caused, even if earlier melting was not. This is special pleading, with no empirical support. One must demonstrate that the cause has changed, not assume it. Assuming it creates circular reasoning: the melting of glaciers after 1950 is different than before 1950 because of AGW, and it is therefore evidence supporting AGW! The proper analysis is that melting of glaciers before 1950 does not require AGW as a cause, and therefore melting after 1950 does not need AGW as a cause unless it can be proven.

As a side-note, it is important to understand that since glaciers are slow to respond to climate changes, and slower the larger they are, the only thing a receding glacier tells us is that it is currently warmer (and/or drier) than when it reached its last maximum extension. So, it is currently warmer than in 1750 or 1800, but we do not know if it is getting warmer and warmer by looking at receding glaciers. This would only be true if glaciers were in instant equilibrium with climate, which is of course not true.

Third, the impacts claimed by the IPCC to be likely in the distant future are claimed to be already evident. The “climate resistance” blog, I believe, coined the term “future present tense” for this phenomenon. In many essays or editorials, the actual argument for present impacts invokes future impacts.

And yet, in most cases in which historical data are sufficient to compare recent with historical data, no trends for increasing bad things can be detected (see Pielke jr blog for many examples), and even the IPCC admits that effects on agriculture and forestry have so far been limited (see also R. Seppala, A. Buck, and P. Katila, eds. Adaptation of Forests and People to Climate Change—A Global Assessment Report. IUFRO World Series Vol. 22. Helsinki. 224pp. [PDF]).

There may also be the following reasoning involved:

Climate change will cause bad things, and climate change is happening.

Therefore, if bad things happen it is due to climate change. This line of argument is qualitative but climate change is not discrete but quantitative, and the bad things that are claimed to be likely consequences depend on the magnitude of the climate change, not just the existence of climate change. This type of argument also misses the necessary/sufficient distinction.

Climate change is not necessary for bad things to happen (since they have happened throughout history and even before human history), it can only be assessed by the frequency of bad things (of course ignoring the existence of good things…).

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Phil M2.

Wow, that makes me feel old. I used to love that show.

George E. Smith

Well as you well know, simultaneity; even order of occurrence cannot be discerned for observers in different frames of reference (special relativity wise.)
So maybe in order to understand climate, we not only have to know all about Quantum Chromodynamics; but we have to become Relativity experts as well.
But I do like my cause to precede the event; it’s tidier that way. I never did like the wolf upstream blaming the lamb downstream, for muddying his water.

Dan in California

CO2 levels have been relatively low for the past few million years.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm
Further back in time, CO2 levels were far higher, yet we had both cold and warm climate. Until there’s a credible explanation of why elevated CO2 will cause global warming now, but it did not then, I remain skeptical of that claimed cause and effect.

Dan in Nevada

Nothing new here, of course, but sometimes the obvious does need to be stated. It also succeeds in making AGW “theory” look ridiculous, not that it needs any help.

Janice The American Elder

Being married to a physicist means having to listen to all sorts of things which start off with “now let’s assume this is a perfect sphere . . .”. But it also means that I have heard the lecture where a scientist’s perception of the problem will make a difference as to what an experiment shows. A simple case is whether light is a wave or a particle. Depending on which way a scientist views the problem, they will see the result in that form. View light as a wave, the experiment shows a wave. View light as a particle, the experiment shows a particle.
Thus, if a scientist believes in anthropomorphic global warming, all warming will come from humans. If a scientist believes in sun-based global warming, all warming will come from the sun. The hard part is finding a scientist who believes in finding the truth, and has no preconceived notions. But since all education is based on some sort of preconceived notions, we are all corrupted by it. Thus, we are caught in the time warp of circular reasoning.
“Everyone must believe in something. I believe I’ll have another drink.” ~ W. C. Fields

Latitude

I’m still waiting on an explanation as to why the slope from 1700-1800 is exactly the same as the slope from 1900-2000…
The former being perfectly natural, and the latter being man made.
Since the slopes are the same, I don’t see a man made signature at all.

glacierman

No, No, No, Deniers have time machines and placed those historic accounts into the record as part of a big oil disinformation campayne. You know, because if you could travel through time, what else would you do but confuse people so you can continue to destroy the planet?

sky

I was with Lohle’s reasoning all the way–until the final line about the frequency of bad things happening. Since weather extremes tend to cluster at the peaks and troughs of long-term cycles, their frequency strikes me as insufficent basis for attribution. There has to be a distinct physically based manifestation of some quantity or quality for sound attribution of cause.

vboring

This is why the hockey stick is so important.
If you can deny that all past temperature variations occurred, then everything happening today must be our fault.
Plus, it is a lot easier to start a climate model from a system in equilibrium.

Craig Loehle

Re: Sky’s comment: yes of course it is not that simple, I was trying to make the distinction between merely observing a tornado and saying it is AGW vs comparing it to some expected “normal” behavior–and you do need to be careful of the timeframe. The recent tornados in the southern USA for example happened during a la nina which produces more tornados in this region on average.

Also, only time travel, ak.a. “future present tense,” can account for how CO2 levels rise about 800 years after a warming. The Goracle foresaw the confusion this would sow among lesser minds and corrected his charts for our edification.

stevo

This whole post is rendered invalid by the simple observation that CO2 did not magically become a greenhouse gas in 1950. CO2 has always been a greenhouse gas, no matter how much you wish it wasn’t, and ever since the Industrial Revolution, its rising concentrations in the atmosphere have affected the energy balance of the atmosphere. It’s really not hard to understand that. 1950 is irrelevant.

Laurie Bowen

Who’s that person on this site who says “Wait for it!”
Don’t you know that the original cause of all this . . . happened in the garden of Eden!

Steve in SC

I see a profound typo.
The IPCC uses hysterical data not historical data. /sarc

Craig Loehle

Peter said: “Also, only time travel, ak.a. “future present tense,” can account for how CO2 levels rise about 800 years after a warming.”
yes, it is interesting that some people are not bothered by the time reversal in that case. I wonder if they measure the rat response to the test drug before they give the drug…

cedley

Ok, so prior to chemical greenhouse gas effects we had no impact on our environment? Howsabout the fact that when it gets cold people burn stuff, the smoke coats everything within a substantial area in soot lowering the albedo? This would be most prevalent when the weather was coldest, eg soot on snow.
As a child in the seventies I recall the soot flaking from buildings that had built up until cleaner means of heating became widespread. (In the north of England)
A simplistic argument implying that all climate change is due to a single cause is specious at best, attempting to resolve the climatic aspects of all human activity against the given time frame would be a better use of your time.

James Sexton

Craig, thanks for the article…. very nice. I would have put just a little more overt sarcasm in, but that’s probably just a matter of taste.
I do like the term “future present tense” though. It goes well with “warmcold”.

Theo Goodwin

This is a masterful exercise in logic that says all that needs to be said about two topics, glaciers and natural variation. Glaciers have been melting for hundreds of years. The fact that they are melting today cannot, in itself, be used to prove that mankind has caused the melting or made it worse. The climate has been warming for hundreds of years. It was warming in 1850 and 1950 yet that must be attributed to natural variation and not human production of CO2. In addition, the warming occurring today should be attributed to natural variation, just like the warming 100 years ago, unless Warmista can come up with some actual physical hypotheses about forcings that can be used to explain excess warming caused by manmade CO2. Take that Trenberth! Hats off to the author.

Kev-in-Uk

I am not sure if I have understood the point of the post clearly (sorry Craig!).
With respect, it seems to me to be stating the obvious – or at least, in the sense that most skeptical folk/scientists look at the IPCC conclusions and ‘see’ these inconsistencies. I feel that most who are actually ‘understanding’ the IPCC outpourings and those of their ardent supporters, realise full well the timescale ‘fudging’, along with all the other ‘cherry picking’ metrics?
Having said that, it is often overlooked within the many generic arguments against the ‘evidence for AGW’, so in that context is worth reminding folk about. Hence, it would probably be worthwhile (IMHO) to present it in an easily understandable manner for general public to grasp (e.g. graphs, points of inflexion where AGW is said to start, etc…) and maybe even compare it to the BS fed to them in typical mainstream media headlines? (e.g. the glaciers)

[offtopic – we have the Tips and Notes page for this]

Jimbo

Are they saying that the post-LIA glacier retreat would have stopped receding if it wasn’t for man?

Climate change is not necessary for bad things to happen (since they have happened throughout history and even before human history), it can only be assessed by the frequency of bad things (of course ignoring the existence of good things…).

No trend of bad climate things has so far been detected. Someone call Al Gore.
2011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2011.01.021
http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1128/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.776/full

OK I’ve got one… we’re all familiar with this logic that says the frequency of ‘this’ indicates a possible trend of ‘that’ etc.
(It’s a perfectly good argument on its own)
So what about applying that logic to the bad arguments *themselves* which are used to promote AGW/ CC/ CO2 taxation etc?
IOW how much bad science, fake data and illogical arguments does it take to indicate that there is in fact likely to be an agenda other than the one being presented on the surface (ie saving the planet etc etc)?
It’s a good question, yes?
Or to put it another way how many times in a row does a teacher have to hear….
“My dog ate it”
“I left it on the bus”
“It got wet so I put it outside to dry in the sun but then a seagull landed, picked it up and flew away with it”
etc
… before she suspects little Jonny is not actually doing his homework?

Alexander

Dear Mr. Loehle
Peter said: “Also, only time travel, ak.a. “future present tense,” can account for how CO2 levels rise about 800 years after a warming.”
yes, it is interesting that some people are not bothered by the time reversal in that case. I wonder if they measure the rat response to the test drug before they give the drug…

Why don’t you try to explain it to Peter? I’m sure you could if you would like.
In fact it’s not difficult for a scientist.

Dave Andrews

Of course during the MWP there were periods when the temperature was pretty warm and periods when it was intensely cold.
Must have been something to do with the way they built and burned their wood fires!
Pity the IPCC wasn’t there at the time to ‘document’ this AGW 🙂

Willis Eschenbach

Nice piece, Craig. Now you just have to go back in time to 1988 and when James Hansen secretly turns off the air conditioner before the Senate Committee meeting about the climate, you can secretly turn it back on …
w.
PS – I took the great liberty to clean up a couple typos, slightly reformat the text, and encode the link, hope you don’t mind.

Jordan

… QED 😉
I shall now demonstrate my computer model which provides compelling evidence that backward time travel is indeed possible …

Craig Loehle says: “I wonder if they measure the rat response to the test drug before they give the drug…” (May 16, 2011 at 1:51 pm )
They don’t have to measure anything at all…actually, no pesky rats needed either; we got computer modeling now.

Kev-in-Uk

stevo says:
May 16, 2011 at 1:46 pm
This whole post is rendered invalid by the simple observation that CO2 did not magically become a greenhouse gas in 1950. CO2 has always been a greenhouse gas, no matter how much you wish it wasn’t, and ever since the Industrial Revolution, its rising concentrations in the atmosphere have affected the energy balance of the atmosphere. It’s really not hard to understand that. 1950 is irrelevant.
================================
Please disregard my earlier post folks – it seems Craigs post is indeeed required and some obviously cannot see the wood for the trees.(my apologies to Dr Loehle)
(I do think it is readily apparent that it needs to be made much much clearer for some, however!)

Good question from CriticalBlogger, but in this case we don’t need inductive evidence. We have the writings of the original founders of the scam, Margaret Mead, Stephen Schneider, John Holdren, et al, in 1975. They made it clear that they were looking for a way to increase government power. A little earlier, a CIA document made the same clear connection.
The other part of the agenda, the Wall Street connection, is less clearly attributed. It seems to have originated along with the Enron trick of securitizing energy around 1999, but I haven’t seen a ‘statement of intent’ as we have with Mead.

wayne

Good post Dr. Loehle. Do you know if such “time violations” can invalidate scientific papers? I would think so if it touches the core of the paper’s point being made.

Latitude

stevo says:
May 16, 2011 at 1:46 pm
===================================
stevo, you are the only person on this planet that can separate the natural signal from the man made one……
….please tell the rest of us exactly how you did that?
Hysterics aside, we’re only talking 1/2 a degree…………………..
and a large part of that was accomplished by fudging numbers and retroactive adjustments of past temperatures

noaaprogrammer

Just back from the future here, (2037), to let you know how things were/will be. SC-24 and 25 did indeed sputter in below predictions and no one yet has a handle on where SC-26 went. Ocean levels have dropped 13 cm. as glaciers and polar ice caps have advanced. The hockey stick graph was indeed correct, except that it was inverted (should have been pointing downwards.) Mexican border security was beefed up to prevent millions of Americans seeking a warmer climate in Central America and respite from marauding polar bears.

Craig Loehle

stevo says: “This whole post is rendered invalid by the simple observation that CO2 did not magically become a greenhouse gas in 1950. CO2 has always been a greenhouse gas, no matter how much you wish it wasn’t, and ever since the Industrial Revolution, its rising concentrations in the atmosphere have affected the energy balance of the atmosphere. It’s really not hard to understand that. 1950 is irrelevant.”
sorry but we are dealing with a quantitative effect, not a qualitative one. Before about 1950 our affect on CO2 was too little to affect the climate, according to the IPCC, and in 1800 it was certainly too low to melt glaciers. I am basing this on the climate models and IPCC plus the other papers I cite.

wayne

stevo says:
May 16, 2011 at 1:46 pm
This whole post is rendered invalid by the simple observation that CO2 did not magically become a greenhouse gas in 1950. CO2 has always been a greenhouse gas, no matter how much you wish it wasn’t, and ever since the Industrial Revolution, its rising concentrations in the atmosphere have affected the energy balance of the atmosphere. It’s really not hard to understand that. 1950 is irrelevant.
———
Not so stevo.
You give me absolute proof that the bolder portion is unquestionably true. There are current peer-reviewed research papers that say the opposite, that rising CO2 has not affected either the atmosphere or the surface we live on, absolutely none.
If you object to my statement, prove it. Your conjecture above has already been rendered invalidated.

Scott

The time thing is always an interesting one to bring up and causes all sorts of contradictions to arise. My favorite is how Tamino has claimed that modern global warming started in 1975. Then later he claimed that the Antarctic sea ice used to be much larger in extent until ~1940, when it began to drop. According to his plot, the Antarctic ice winter maximum lost about 20% of its extent between 1940 and 1975 and another 10% or so before 1979, when satellite observations began (and interestingly enough have seen SH sea ice slightly increase). The loss in the summer minimum was even larger (by %) – about 40% between 1940 and 1975 and an additional 15% or so from 1975 to 1979 (when satellite observations began and surprise showed a slight increase).
So how can modern global warming begin in 1975 and yet we cause such drastic losses in Antarctic (and Arctic) sea ice before 1975? And why did the trends change so much in 1979…coincidentally when more reliable measurements could be made? Also, why is 3 C/CO2 doubling only (even sort of) visible in the temperature record for the last 25-30 years and not before then?
-Scott

@janice
I expect “Anthropomorphic” is a slip of the keyboard, however a number of analyses that use incorrect statistical processing have resulted in distinct Mickey-mouse formations.
Fields was a genius, and has much to say with respect to Climate Scientists’ behaviour:
Zeth: “Is this a game of chance?”
Cuthbert J. Twillie: “Not the way I play it, no.”

Stevo says,
“This whole post is rendered invalid by the simple observation that CO2 did not magically become a greenhouse gas in 1950. CO2 has always been a greenhouse gas, no matter how much you wish it wasn’t, and ever since the Industrial Revolution, its rising concentrations in the atmosphere have affected the energy balance of the atmosphere. It’s really not hard to understand that. 1950 is irrelevant.”
Using the concept of a ‘greenhouse’ and ‘greenhouse gases’ is to misunderstand how the atmosphere works. Greenhouses prevent convection of warm air upwards by trapping the convection currents within the greenhouse. There is no ‘glass ceiling’ in the atmosphere to stop convection therefore no greenhouse effect. There is no secondary radiation downwards that can warm the ground unless the second law of thermodynamics can be suspended. CO2 is irrelevant to any energy balances. Only water in the atmosphere, exchanging between three states along with the latent heats involved in those exchanges, can do the business of shifting energy around. If CO2 could exist in three states in the atmosphere then and only then would its presence be relevant.

Paul Westhaver

Though I am not given to picking nits…
Watch this particular episode piece of ATOM wherein “the measurement problem” is discussed at the end. The implications is that present observations influence the state of the universe in the past.

Time stamp 8:40
The concept hurts me.

Craig Loehle

To clarify, I am not saying CO2 is irrelevant, or that the greenhouse effect does not exist (though I don’t believe in positive feedback aka amplification), only that our effect before 1950 (or even 1970), according to the IPCC, was trivial.

Karen D

Thanks for posting, Dr. Loehle, I enjoyed your article.
Along the same lines, lately I notice references in news reports to weather of “unprecedented” or “increasing” severity — storms that are almost as bad as record setting events of 30 or 40 years ago. In others words things are getting so much worse than ever before, it’s almost as bad as it used to be. (And of course somebody must be to blame for this!)

Murray

Actually, Alpine glaciers advanced again from ca 1820-1850 and only then started their most recent retreat. Advance and retreat at high (cold) altitude is much more connected with cloud cover and precipitation than with temperature per se. However your point remains valid.

Philip Foster,
Thanks for your explanation.
CO2 was close to ten times higher than today going into the Ordovician-Silurian glaciation, when global temperatures rapidly declined by 5°C. And CO2 has been almost twenty times higher in the geologic past, and thousands of ppmv in the more recent past, without triggering runaway global warming [click in the image to embiggen]. In fact, the only correlation between geologic temperatures and CO2 shows that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature.
This cause-and-effect disconnect between rising CO2 and temperature is evident throughout the geologic record. How do alarmists explain that CO2 causes the temperature to measurably rise? Why, exactly, is everything diffenrent now?
Occam’s Razor says the simplest answer is almost always the right answer. When you accept the fact that “carbon” has very little effect on temperature – at the most, a few tenths of a degree, after a very substantial 40% increase in CO2 [and much of that rise is due to natural variability] – the cause of the alarm becomes clear: climate scientists have been trained with grant funds the way Pavlov trained dogs with dog biscuits.

BarryW

Yes, but the counter to your argument seems to be to add the word unprecedented in front of the effect. Hence, the glacial melt must be at an unprecedented rate which, of course, has to be because of CO2. Of course there are those pesky glaciers which continue to grow just to spite the warmists…..

David L. Hagen

“Climate change” caused the Little Ice Age with corresponding severe impacts on society and economies. How much of that was caused by Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) since 1950?

Latitude

Craig Loehle says:
May 16, 2011 at 3:21 pm
only that our effect before 1950 (or even 1970), according to the IPCC, was trivial.
=======================================================
Craig, you had made that same point back in September.
The graphs you posted then, made it clear that the slope from ~1700-1800, with a 100 year flat lag, is the same slope from ~1900-2000. And now it looks like we are in the lag again.
Obviously man made CO2 had no effect on the exact same 1oo year ~1700-1800 slope.
I’m still waiting on someone to tease the man made portion out of the exact same 100 year slope from ~1900-2000.
I don’t see it, and no one else can see it either……
Craig’s post from Sept:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/loehle-vindication/

Harold Pierce Jr

RE: Constant Mean Temperature in Texas since 1895.
From the NCDC webpage “Climate at Glance”, the annual mean temperature for Texas since 1895 has been a constant 65 +/- 1 deg F and the annual 1895-2010 trend is 0.00 deg F per decade.
You will never convince the folks in Texas that carbon dioxide causes “global warming.”

Craig Loehle says: “…. I am not saying CO2 is irrelevant, or that the greenhouse effect does not exist (though I don’t believe in positive feedback aka amplification), only that our effect before 1950 (or even 1970), according to the IPCC, was trivial.” (May 16, 2011 at 3:21 pm)
Perhaps, Dr Loehle, the default assumption that the Warmies’ dates and their amplification hypothesis are related in any serious way to science or the real world is the fundamental flaw here. They cannot ask us to reduce our sinful spewing of the CO2 poison below 1950s levels, as we’d all probably have to stop breathing. Such a request would have bummed us out and discouraged us, putting a damper on the lucrative carbon trading bonanzas, cheerful green technologies and super-smart energy schemes. The “amplification” and its timing is merely a device to make it all relevent and current, to remind our sinful and selfish butts of the imminence of the horrible eco-apocalypse that was predicted with such startling clarity and high drama by the inventor of the Internet, no less.

maz2

Does this fear-mongering qualify as a “Bad things happen BEFORE their cause.”?
“Violent Arctic storm a climate-change ‘harbinger'”.
Scientists say “no comparable event has occurred in at least 1,000 years.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/violent-arctic-storm-a-climate-change-harbinger/article2023865/

R. Gates

All this of course assumes that some simple linear or even logarithmic effect from the accumulation of GH gases (with related feedbacks). This assumption is of course wrong. The upshot of this is that really bad things (relative to what is good or bad for human life) have happened in the past, and will happen in the future, and that very small nudges in the climate system one way or another, accumulated over time, can suddenly bring about a really bad thing. The problem of course is that these really bad things, or “black swan” events, while they may have very specific deterministic causes, are wrapped up in a spatio-temporal chaotic system (i.e. the climate), and so, the exact way and exact timing of their unfolding is unpredictable by any current (and likely future) climate model.
Here’s another way to think about it. When piling up grains of sand to make a sandpile, you could argue that the early grain you add had very little effect on the eventual collapse of that sandpile (i.e. the black swan event), but in fact, it took those early grains to lead to that eventual single grain that brings about the collapse of the sandpile. Completely deterministic, with the friction between the grains of sand adding up in a very logarithmic way (just like the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere)until that one grain collapses the whole pile, with all the other grains that came before (when nothing visible happened) actually adding together to determine the collapse. This is the way chaos works.

Maurice J

A SCAM is A SCAM is A SCAM.
And AGW, CLIMATE CHANGE, CLIMATE DISRUPTION, THE CLIMATE CRISIS (or whatever next the Socialists decide to call it) is the BIGGEST SCAM ever pulled on mankind period.