Image: Anthony Watts
Allow me to share with you a speech given by one of my sound colleagues here in the European Parliament. Derk Jan Eppink is a Dutch national representing Belgium who sits with us in our Euro-sceptic ECR group. He delivered this speech, entitled “A religion without a God” at a book launch for “Blauwe Planeet” – the newest book by Czech President, and fellow climate realist, Vaclav Klaus. – Roger Helmer MEP
At the occasion of launching Blauwe Planeet
By Derk Jan Eppink
May 25 2011
A religion without a God
Last weekend on May 21, American Christian preacher Harold Camping, once again encountered his ‘Disappointment Day’. For years he announced the end of times, predicting May 21 to be Judgment Day. On that day, the world would be destroyed and only ‘a chosen few’ would make it to heaven.
On Judgment Day, the preacher took a seat in front of his television to await news events. He expected a live report of CNN covering a wave of earthquakes that ultimately would lead to global demise.
But nothing happened.
Instead, CNN focused on the Frenchman Dominique Strauss-Kahn who lost his way and senses in a New York hotel room. For ‘DSK’ indeed, the world collapsed. The preacher was disappointed that apocalypses remained confined to only one person and possibly some of his friends in Paris belonging to la gauche caviar. The preacher fled to a motel to escape international media.
Generally, the advantage of religion is that you do not have to take ‘facts’ into account. Like doomsday announcer Camping, you simply believe and preach, hoping that facts will follow. Western political elites live in a secularized world, a world without God. But religion – a matter of belief – does apparently remain a need of human mankind. In particular, progressive political elites have abolished God, while clinging to notoriously religious features like ‘fear’, ‘guilt’, ‘final judgement’, ‘redemption’, ‘sin’ and ‘salvation’, as part of their political philosophies.
God is gone, but the rest stayed on. Climate Change is just an example of this phenomenon. The concept can only be effective if there is ‘guilt’ (politically incorrect behaviour of human mankind), ‘fear’ (doomsday), if there is ‘sin’ (acts of unprincipled unbelievers), and finally salvation (brought about by the NGO´s of the Green Movement). And if there is somehow a substitute Jesus on top, as impersonated by Al Gore, secular religion gets rooted in political communities trying to turn it into public policy all people have to adhere to.
It takes courage to withstand religion-based political philosophies. You will be depicted as a heretic, as anti-human, as narrow-minded, as autistic and stupid. In fact, like in theocracies any opponent should be dispatched to the dustbin of history. When climate change was minted into religion and subsequently put on the political agenda, carefully orchestrated by celebrities and media consultants, it became a wave of self-righteousness. There was no way to escape.
Yet a few risk-daring politicians rose to the occasion. The first was Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic and a dissident by inclination. He simply raised factual questions secularized religions can hardly cope with.
That is what he did with Communism which was, after all, an elaborated quasi-religious philosophy pretending to lead human mankind to the ‘Promised Land’ on Earth. And here again, even as President of an EU member state he challenged the fundamentals of a policy pretending to save the world from Doomsday.
Many politicians publish books. Very often, these books are written by other people. Very often, these books are glossy and self-glorifying. Very often, these books make no impact whatsoever and they are finally shelved in the basement of the party headquarter. Mostly, these books are dead upon arrival in the bookstore.
Klaus takes on nonsensical thinking regardless of the status of the author himself. In 2009, he visited the European Parliament to tell his audience that they were ‘disconnected’ from reality. He stated that a Parliament without a legitimate opposition is not really a Parliament. In fact, it is a church singing the gospel of the ‘ever closer Union’. Some members were shocked, left the Plenary and started crying in the corridor. Yesterday, Ivo Belet one of those weeping members, published an opinion article in a Flemish newspaper denouncing NVA-figurehead Bart De Wever for meeting the Anti-Christ from the Czech Republic. Belet, a slavish poodle of EU figureheads, is barking up the wrong tree. The European elite demand flattery and praise; not to criticism, let alone unconventional thinking.
It takes courage to challenge fashionable thinking. For 5 years, I worked in the cabinet of former Commissioner Frits Bolkestein. The Dutch Commissioner was a non federalist and a climate change sceptic in the Commission. For most of his colleagues he was the ‘devil in disguise’. You can imagine the bumpy ride he had in Brussels; he was a ‘non believer’ in a church of devoted federalists.
Once he got a letter from former Belgian Commissioner, Etienne Davignon, a self-appointed viceroy of the United States of Belgium, who said that a non federalist should not be member of the European Commission. He demanded a purge to restore the purity of the Institution.
Ten years ago, Bolkestein publicly said that the Euro would derail if not underpinned by sound monetary policy and iron-clad criteria of the Stability and Growth Pact. He also stated that a common EU immigration policy based on unenforced external borders would generate a political backlash beyond belief. He was laughed at. But now, the political elite of the EU is not laughing anymore. They wasted ten years of policy-making and still, they would rather drive into a brick wall than to admit that they made mistakes.
Jean Marie Dedecker equally has the courage to stick out his neck. As a former Judo player and coach he is not risk adverse. On the contrary, he likes the fray and smashing his opponents on the ground, sooner the better.
And that is precisely why he has written the introduction to the Dutch version of the book President Klaus is launching here today. He belonged to the first in Belgium to challenge the preachers of doom and climate change. Belgium only recently abolished God, and for those who were still in doubt some catholic leaders and priests did the rest.
Flanders was in urgent need for a religious substitute that would be able to micromanage the lives of the people. Obviously, Dedecker was vilified by the political elites and the media which had turned into an extension of the green movement and its preachers in politics.
Both Klaus and Dedecker focused on facts, rather than on speculation and emotional manipulation. They challenged the issues head-on by raising difficult questions, and by doing so they gradually saw the narrative of climate change unravel. Later on, a series of scandals revealed that so-called scientific researchers had manipulated their work in order to serve the dogmas of their beliefs. The Copenhagen Summit resulted in failure and, demonstrations against climate change even had to be cancelled because it was to cold and frosty in the Danish capital.
Now, climate change does not have that mythical spot on the political agenda it had a few years ago. However, it remains on the agenda of political elites in the EU. Some people really do believe; others simply pretend in order to sustain a quasi-progressive image. But the man in the street never embraced climate change and why? The climate has been changing as long as there is a climate, even in times in which people were running around naked and living in caves. One slight change in the activity of the Sun has an impact on the entire [solar system]. Human behaviour is just one of the many elements. Therefore, the religious zeal did not stick because ‘human guilt’ could not be established. And ‘guilt’ is what it takes to make a religion work, even a religion without a God.
Therefore, a democracy needs people like Klaus and Dedecker, people who speak out when nobody does, people who stand out when others follow the flow and people who lash out when many bend towards submission. This book will certainly be a much welcome recipe against political overheating in Flanders and the reality-check which is the necessary basis for any sound public policy.

There can be no Satanism without a belief in God (The cult v religion) just as there can be no “skepticism” without climate science. “Skepticism” or satanism is an off-shoot of the mainstream. The mainstream has many beneficial tendencies while the cult does not. The cult is about the short-term exploitation of those they can get to believe. The belief of the cult is based on a twisted misunderstanding of mainstream which creates a distrust for the mainstream. The cult provides the misunderstanding and then provides a means to cope with the misunderstanding.
sceptical:
I completely agree with your post at May 28, 2011 at 9:28 pm and, therefore, I firmly assert that the cult of AGW must be opposed before it does more harm than it already has.
The leaders of the AGW cult (e.g. Jones, Hansen, Mann, etc.) have done immense damage to climate science with resulting damage to the reputation of all science.
Acolytes of the cult leaders (e.g. Rabbit, Tamino, Slioch, etc.) disseminate lies and hide behind pseudonyms to avoid being called to account.
Adherents to the cult (e.g. yourself) are dupes who swallow the AGW BS, believe it, and then pretend the BS has an importance which gives them importance because they believe it.
If you escape from the AGW cult then you will be able to discover that you – and all other people – have worth and merit by virtue of you being human. You do not need to justify yourself by adhering to the AGW cult or any other cult.
I commend you to escape from the AGW cult for your own sake.
Richard
@richard Courtney
You said that it is “A LIE” that nobody claimed the tropospheric hotspot was a signature of CO2. Well, I say your argument is based on a misunderstanding of section of the IPCC report you quote. Here’s how…
The graphs in question show that the only forcing that produces significant warming over the period considered is “well mixed greenhouse gases”. The big red blob in graph (c) is caused by that warming, but not specifically CO2 induced warming . That pattern would be seen whatever caused the warming. You can see in graph (a) that the warming attributed to solar forcing is most pronounced in the same region of the atmosphere, i.e. the tropical troposphere, there’s just less of it. If you cranked up the solar forcing you would see the same hot spot as in (c). The real “CO2 fingerprint” is statospheric cooling, the blue region at the top of graph. Other forcings don’t cause that effect. As the section of the report quoted by Richard goes on to say, “Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere”.
Both of these arguments are, of course, well rehearsed on the Internet. Look it up for yourself, but don’t just stop at the rebuttal of the IPCC report; see what the counter arguments are, and then see what the rebutters have to say about the counter arguments, and so on.
4 eyes said:
“Your generalisation about politicians on the right reluctantly accepting “it” tells me exactly where you are coming from – a political position, not a scientific one.
And your even wilder claim that skeptics think “the whole thing” is a conspiracy confirms you are thinking in non scientific terms. What conspiracy do the skeptics claim? How many skeptics say this and who are they? Are all skeptics the same.? More myth propagation. If you are going to make generalisations you’d better be prepared to put up or shut up. WUWT got its good reputation by sticking to the facts and demanding logical argument.”
The “conspiracy” of which I speak is that Mann, Hansen, Gore, the MSM, IPCC, CRU, those who cleared the CRU of wrongdoing, etc., know that they are talking a crock, but they continue doing it for financial or political gain.
Let me make my position totally clear: I try to base my own decisions purely on the science. I am, however, making the assertion that AGW skepticism is primarily a political position, not based on science. If it were a scientific position, then skeptics would do some science and then use that science as argument rather than merely picking holes in mainstream science. I would be only too happy to accept such science if it held up. I am well aware that there are AGW proponents who are equally politically motivated and also that there are those on both sides who are incapable of understanding the science anyway. So no, not all skeptics are the same.
I have learned a lot from this thread, the main thing being that you really believe what you are saying. I had the preconception that many skeptics were being dishonest, but that certainly doesn’t seem to be the case here. I too believe what I am saying, so hopefully I have provided you with an insight into the mindset of “the other side”. However, as was noted earlier, science does not care about my opinion of it, or yours; it’s the facts that count. The hockey stick may or may not be broken, but whether it is or not has nothing to do with what you or I personally think of Mann, Gore, or McIntire and McKitrick.
John B:
At May 29, 2011 at 3:28 am you attempt the usual ‘warmist’ trick of justifying lies with another lies whilst attempting to change the subject.
Fact:
At May 28, 2011 at 4:47 am you asserted:
“…The tropospheric hotspot is proposed (by climate scientists) to be a signature of warming, however caused, not just of anthropogenic warming. It was never claimed to be a “fingerprint of CO2″. …“
Fact:
That assertion is a combination of three lies; viz.
1. The tropospheric hotspot is proposed … to be a signature of warming, however caused, …
2. The tropospheric hotspot is proposed … to be a signature of warming … not just of anthropogenic warming.
3. It (i.e. the tropospheric hotspot) was never claimed to be a “fingerprint of CO2″. …“
Fact:
At May 28, 2011 at 1:33 pm I stated that the IPCC denies your falsehoods and I posted a link so anybody can see the truth for themselves.
Fact:
As the link I provided proves:
1a. The IPCC says the tropospheric hotspot is NOT a signature of warming, however caused.
2b. The IPCC says the tropospheric hotspot IS A UNIQUE SIGNATURE of warming from “well-mixed greenhouse gases” and NOT from any other cause.
3b. The IPCC says the major increase in warming from “well-mixed greenhouse gases” is predominantly from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration.
At May 29, 2011 at 3:28 am you respond with:
“Both of these arguments are, of course, well rehearsed on the Internet. Look it up for yourself, but don’t just stop at the rebuttal of the IPCC report; see what the counter arguments are, and then see what the rebutters have to say about the counter arguments, and so on.”
But I was writing to prove as I said at the start of my comment to you at May 28, 2011 at 1:33 pm;
“Your above comments repeatedly claim the propoganda provided by the IPCC is real science, and you suggest that people should read that propoganda. But your comments demonstrate you have not read it.
For example, at May 28, 2011 at 4:47 am you assert: …”
Now you say “don’t just stop at the rebuttal of the IPCC report”!
Go away, you nasty little troll. Your lies are not wanted here.
Richard
“Sceptical”, it is you and your quasi-religious Warmist cult that twists and misunderstands, while we skeptics/climate realists are the antidote to that; we are more akin to atheists. You Warmists have erected a belief system wherein Gaia is your God, C02 represents evil, and man, by way of spewing said evil is sinful, and in need of redemption and salvation. Those who do not Believe are doomed to eternal damnation in the fires of climate Hell. Believers are able to obtain relief from the guilt of their very existence by purchasing Indulgences such as carbon credits, and by buying expensive “Green” products which have been sanctified by your Church. By peddling itself as “mainstream” and as “science” the Warmist Religion manages, (or has managed) to fool the naive, the simple-minded, the easily-led, and most shamefully, the young, who haven’t yet acquired the critical thought processes necessary to counteract the propaganda with which they are being assaulted.
Unfortunately for the high priests and other purveyors of Warmism, though, and fortunately for mankind, the whole thing is in the process of coming undone. It is a dying religion, thankfully. Soon it will be relegated to the dustbin of inglorious history, to be wondered at and ridiculed by our descendents.
Bruce Cobb, AGW science is mainstream. The Pentagon and the Pope have made public statements supporting the science which over 97% of climate scientists have said shows AGW. How much more mainstream can you get than when the Pentagon and the Pope are in agreement.
Richard Courtney, you are confused about what you claim the IPCC says about a Tropospheric hotspot. Indoctrination into a cult confuses people as to the reality of the world.
sceptical says:
May 29, 2011 at 4:55 am
Bruce Cobb, AGW science is mainstream. The Pentagon and the Pope have made public statements supporting the science
Personally, I would regard this as a warning sign.
“97% of climate scientists”
“Say their governments prefer it.”
Sceptical:
At May 29, 2011 at 4:55 am you say to me:
“Richard Courtney, you are confused about what you claim the IPCC says about a Tropospheric hotspot.”
No!
I copied and pasted from the IPCC Report and I provided a direct link to the page of that Report from which I had copied. I again provide it here so anybody can see the truth for themselves.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
Confusion? You AGW cultists are so deluded that quotation seems to be “confusion” to you.
Richard
Richard S Courtney said:
“Fact:
As the link I provided proves:
1a. The IPCC says the tropospheric hotspot is NOT a signature of warming, however caused.
2b. The IPCC says the tropospheric hotspot IS A UNIQUE SIGNATURE of warming from “well-mixed greenhouse gases” and NOT from any other cause.
3b. The IPCC says the major increase in warming from “well-mixed greenhouse gases” is predominantly from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
Where does it say anything that supports 1a and/or 2b? My quote, “Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere” is taken directly from your link. I genuinely cannot find support for your assertions in your link. If you can, please quote it so I can learn something. On 3b, we agree – IPCC does indeed say that the major increase in warming is predominantly from increased CO2 concentration. That is, of course, the central premise of the AGW theory.
I still think you have misunderstood the report you quote and/or the science behind it. To paraphrase the mainstream argument and the IPCC report section – (1) CO2 causes warming, (2) warming should cause a hotspot, (3) we haven’t been able to measure the hotspot. But as it is not the CO2 that causes the hotspot directly, this does not mean that (1) is invalid. It means that either there is no warming (clearly not the case over the last 100 years, the period they are considering), the model that predicts the hotspot is wrong (possible, but unlikely as it is based on the same physics that proven weather models use) or the problem is in the measurement.
I may be mistaken somewhere, but I am not lying to you. And surely merely disagreeing or even being wrong doesn’t make me a troll? According to wikipedia, “In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum”. Which of those did I do?
sceptical, you and your Warmtroll ilk keep repeating that “97% of climate scientists” nonsense like a mantra. We know that, in one poll, 75 out of 77 self-proclaimed “climate scientists” said that they believe in manmade warming/climate change. Only the most delusional and/or suffering the severest throes of cognitive dissonance can possibly believe that to be in any way significant. The “mainstream science” claim is not only bogus in itself, but it is an irrational argument. In no way does it say anything about the soundness of the science.
Tony B:
I am responding to your latest troll comment (it is at May 29, 2011 at 6:16 am) so it is clear that I am not ignoring you.
It asks me:
“I may be mistaken somewhere, but I am not lying to you. And surely merely disagreeing or even being wrong doesn’t make me a troll? According to wikipedia, “In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum”. Which of those did I do?”
I answer:
All of the above. The following are examples.
“a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, … messages in an online community.”
e.g. John B says at May 27, 2011 at 12:58 pm
” And isn’t it skeptics who are driven by ideology – the ideology of the free market – to the exclusion of all rational enquiry?”
That question is extremely “inflammatory” to left-wing socialists like me.
“a troll is someone who posts … extraneous … messages in an online community.”
e.g. John B says at May 27, 2011 at 2:37 pm
” That’s how science works. But it has to hold up. That’s why the oft quoted “global cooling scare” of the 1970′s, which was all based on one paper, went away. It didn’t hold up.”
There are so many ‘hooks’ on that attempt to side-track the discussion of this thread that I gasp in awe. But the “global cooling scare” and its several published papers are “extraneous” to the discussion of this thread.
“a troll is someone who posts … off-topic messages in an online community.”
John B says at May 27, 2011 at 2:37 pm
“A plea to those whose minds are still open – read the “IPCC report summary for policy makers” for yourself. If you don’t like it, what have you lost? If you find yourself thinking, “hmm, this isn’t what I was expecting”, dig a little deeper.”
Discussion of the validity of the political IPCC Summary for Policymakers is very “off-topic” for this thread.
There are several other examples, but you ‘go-for-broke’ when you try to claim the IPCC does not say what it does about the ‘hot spot’. Your claims lie, they inflame by dishonestly implying that my link to the IPCC statement is false, they are “extraneous” to rational debate, and they are “off-topic” of this debate.
I enjoy rational debate with people whose opinions differ from my own because I learn from such debate: I learn nothing by listening to opinions that I hold. But I resent trolls and their attempts to prevent rational discussion.
Richard
@Bruce Cobb
And in another study, it was between 97 and 98% of 1,372.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
“Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. “
John B,
You’re still flogging that dead horse? Give it up, it’s dead.
You couldn’t get 98% of scientists to agree that bears crap in the woods – but we’re suposed to believe that 98% of self-designated ‘climate scientists’ all agree with the UN/IPCC?? Get a grip. You’re starting to sound like Harold Camping.
sceptical says:
“AGW science is mainstream. The Pope… made public statements…”
That’s your authority?☺
And John B, it is the models that are wrong about the tropospheric hot spot; the widely predicted “fingerprint of AGW.”
Well, the AGW fingerprint simply isn’t there. And the temperature measurements are taken with radiosonde balloons and confirmed by satellite measurements – both accepted as being very accurate.
The fact is that you cannot provide any evidence, per the scientific method, showing that CO2 causes any rise at all in temperature. It may. But where is the evidence?
Richard:
I really don’t think what I said was off-topic, inflammatory or extraneous. The OP was about AGW as a religion. I was trying to make the counter point that, to me, AGW looks scientific and the “skeptics” seem more religious. You might not like that opnion, but I think it is on-topic, etc.
And you say, “There are several other examples, but you ‘go-for-broke’ when you try to claim the IPCC does not say what it does about the ‘hot spot’. Your claims lie, they inflame by dishonestly implying that my link to the IPCC statement is false, they are “extraneous” to rational debate, and they are “off-topic” of this debate.”
I didn’t claim your link was false – it links correctly to the IPCC report. I said that I think you misundertood it. I stand by that. I asked you, and this is a genuine inquiry, to show me where the report claims that the hot spot is a signature of AGW, as opposed to warming from any source. I’d really like to know. Or maybe Smokey could help out there.
And as for being a left-wing socialist, Google would seem to suggest you’ve been keeping that quiet 🙂
“Smokey said: “The fact is that you cannot provide any evidence, per the scientific method, showing that CO2 causes any rise at all in temperature. It may. But where is the evidence?”
Sorry, I didn’t know I had been asked for that evidence. Anyway, here goes. One line of evidence is:
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it can absorb and re-transmit IR radiation
2) Temperature in the instrumental record period has corresponded closely with CO2 levels. Even more closely if you factor out sulfate emissions, ENSO, Pinatubo and other short term variations.
3) The main “fingerprint” of CO2-induced warming is a cooling stratosphere. That is because some of the radiation re-transmitted by tropospheric COs goes downwards, so does not reach the stratosphere to warm it.
(4) This cooling has been measured.
Which bit of that do you not accept?
John B:
Stop trolling.
Richard
1. What about the former warmists who became turncoats?
2. What about the leftists among us?
PS: E.g., what about the original head of Greenpeace?
@roger
I’m sure there isn’t a single answer to that, and I should qualify my own assertion as in the main I think skeptics are ideologically driven. I guess there will be a mixture of people who have ideological changes of heart and people who really believe the science does not support AGW. I happen to think the evidence shows that they are wrong. Eventually the facts will out.
John B exhibits psychological projection, imputing his fault onto scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists]:
“…I think skeptics are ideologically driven… the evidence shows that they are wrong.”
I challenge you to post such evidence, showing exactly how much warming a given amount of CO2 has caused. Make it testable, verifiable evidence per the scientific method.
And keep in mind that models are not evidence; neither is the deliberately fabricated temperature data exposed in the Climategate emails and the Harry_read_me file.
In fact, there is no verifiable evidence showing that a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperature. AGW is still at the conjecture/hypothesis stage of the scientific method. It is not a theory because it has never been able to make accurate, testable predictions. James Hansen gave three wide-ranging predictions – not one of which happened. Don’t you think it’s time to demand real world evidence of the AGW conjecture? Because so far, there isn’t any.
John B, you seem to be correct. Nowhere does the IPCC claim that the tropospheric hotspot is a signature of AGW. This hotspot is a signature of any warming. Richard Courtney does not understand what the IPCC report he linked to is saying.
Smokey, the accuracy of Dr. Hansen’s past projections are quit good. It must really take some squinting to see otherwise.
Smokey:
Your post at May 29, 2011 at 3:15 pm is much too kind.
John B is not exhibiting “psychological projection”: if he were then he would merit pity.
But he is merely a troll attempting to inhibit rational debate, so he merits contempt.
Richard
C’mon Smokey, gimme a break. First you asked “… provide any evidence, per the scientific method, showing that CO2 causes any rise at all in temperature.” I pointed you at the evidence. Now you ask “I challenge you to post such evidence, showing exactly how much warming a given amount of CO2 has caused”. You know as well as I do, that that is not possible, because the predictions have error bars. But the trap you are falling onto is, “science doesn’t know everything, so it doesn’t know anything.”
I gave you 4 steps in a chain of evidence, to which links to the original research are easy to find. Most skeptics accept at least some of those steps. Tell me which step you are not happy with and I’ll see what I can do to provide the evidence.
Regarding Hansen’s predictions from 1988, he over-estimated climate sensitivity. Had he used a value in middle of the IPCC range (which he didn’t have at the time, of course) his scenario B would have been pretty much spot on.