By Chris Horner, ATI
Michael Mann made his way back to the Commonwealth of Virginia yesterday to watch his U.S. lawyer reprise the dark conspiracy theories previously weaved throughout his Canadian lawsuit against Tim Ball for repeating the old joke about “belong[ing] in the State Pen, not Penn State”.
The forum was a hearing in the American Tradition Institute’s Freedom of Information Act (VA) case against the University of Virginia (UVa) for certain records sent to or from Mann accounts while he was at UVa. That period is when the chatter about deleting records to circumvent FOI laws and other wagon-circling took place among the self-appointed “Hockey Team”.
That sort of paranoia sounded even worse in the spoken word that it reads in a brief. The judge gave an almost imperceptible shake of his head when my colleague David Schnare wondered aloud, when his turn came, about responding to all of the ad hominem. Enough already, this gesture seemed to say.
The Court allowed Mann to enter as an intervenor in this dispute, from the bench and without explanation. So there’s little we can offer there except that, when all is considered, this does provide the Court with the path of fewest problems (though hardly none, if Mann’s record in pleadings and argument is any basis to judge by; possibly some allies will try and delay matters yet again when we next proceed).
Given Mann’s argument was almost entirely limited to a vast right-wing conspiracy if one involving some names I’d never even heard of and in an apparently studious avoidance of the applicable law, we can only surmise the rationale for this move was grounded in equities found elsewhere than that curious display.
ATI opposed Mann’s motion to intervene simply because he offered no principled basis to intervene. We will appeal therefore with an eye toward settling the question as to what rights, or other considerations, justify a faculty member’s intervention in a FOIA case. For now we welcome Mann to this case to defend the content of his emails in a public forum. Presumably, just more conspiracy theorizing won’t suffice anymore.
We then proceeded to UVa’s effort to reopen the Protective Order, seeking to substitute themselves for us as the party reviewing and selecting exemplar emails from the cache they now admit to possessing. That it would be reopened was pro forma after Mann was deemed to have interests at stake, if what these interests are was left unstated.
The Court noted the distrust between the parties, particularly ours of UVa after all of what they have done, and so did not allow UVA to assume that role. This was despite that in advance they and Mann had agreed to jointly stipulate to this (his lawyer’s rather odd, earlier argument notwithstanding, see below).
But, as we argued, UVa’s utterly terrible record on this matter does not inspire confidence that a fair review and representative sample is to be had from them. Their ill-fit for the newly adopted pose of independent arbiter is somewhat betrayed by their legal bills fighting the AG’s Civil Investigative Demand now heading toward a million dollars. Then there is the enormous pressure from their faculty and pressure groups — which they finally copped to, after arguing previously in pleadings that this was all in our heads. Speaking of its track record.
And, finally, UVa has essentially the same interest as Mann at stake and is no more a suitable arbiter than Mann himself (per Mann, that’s “embarrassment”). To say UVa is aggressively focused on limiting the damage of what occurred in its program, with still not a finger toward self-policing lifted to date, is also something of an understatement.
So we have until a scheduled December 20 hearing to agree to a third party reviewer, cost and methodology. If we cannot agree the court will impose a process.
Toward that end, Mann’s attorney informed the Court that, well, Mann is the only person on the planet capable of understanding the content and meaning of emails he sent and received, thereby not only raising questions about his correspondents but making his future objections as to reviewers something less than entirely relevant or credible.
Cost is to be split at worst three ways, one presumes. Mann is surely going to be raising money for this. So, we won’t be shy, either. We can’t match the cool million the University of Virginia is pouring into their effort to make the embarrassment the revelations in ClimateGate emails to and from Mann’s UVa accounts has caused them go away. But every little bit helps.
@-Smokey says: November 4, 2011 at 6:34 pm
“I challenge anyone to falsify my [testable] hypothesis:
At current and projected levels, CO2 is harmless and beneficial.”
At current and projected levels CO2 will cause some degree of climate change because of the extra downwelling IR that is measured. Even LIndzen and Spencer agree with that; the dispute is HOW MUCH warming.
So your hypothesis can be restated as –
Any change in climate and rise in global temperatures is harmless and beneficial.
– Unless you are starting with the hidden assumption that the measured changes in energy flux at the surface and TOA will have NO effect on the climate?
The idea that a warming of the climate is exclusively beneficial, or at least harmless is refuted by the historical problems of desertification and drought during past warmer climate periods.
Because human large-scale agricultural methods tend to assume a constant climate any change will tend to be disruptive, as with the warming and drought causing the dustbowl and depression of the 30s.
The hypothesis that global warming will ONLY be harmless and beneficial with NO negative consequences is not supported by the historical record.
However I suspect from the tenor of your previous posts that you do make this hypothesis with the hidden assumption that CO2 rising will have NO effect on the climate.
That is refuted by the measured change in the energy balance from OLR and DLR measurements.
The hypothesis –
ANY global warming of the climate will be harmless and beneficial to human civilization.
Is refuted by history.
The only way you could refuse to acknowledge this refutes YOUR hypothesis is if you explicitly add the hypothesis that rising CO2 has NO effect on the climate. Climate sensitivity to increasing surface IR energy is not just small, but zero.
Judith Curry recently had a series of threads dealing with this she called the ‘Dragon Slayer’ posts. They point out very effectively the idiocy of the ‘CO2 has no climate effect’ position. You might want to check them out.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/
Rattus Norvegicus says:
November 4, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Smokey, it is up to you to provide evidence for your hypothesis. Scientific method and all that…>>>
Past Smokey’s bed time I suspect. I’ll help you out Rattus.
1. Maximum plant growth occurrs at several thousand PPM of CO2 for the majority of plants, suggesting that they evolved at much higher concentrations of CO2 than we have now, but at similar temperature ranges.
2. If there was no CO2, all the plants would die, and we would starve to death, along with almost all the animal life on the planet.
3. In fact, the above would begin to happen at 180 PPM, the concentration at which most photosynthesis begins to shut down. This suggests that the estimated “normal” background range of 280 PPM of CO2 is dangerously low, and that thousands of PPM is much safer.
4. The ice core and other long term proxy data confirm that CO2 has been in the thousands of PPM in the past, that temps were very little more than they are today, but that the biosphere thrived at levels we haven’t seen since.
5. In the event that CO2 does provide warming of any measurable significance, Stefan-Boltzmann Law demands that very little will happen in the tropics, most of the warming (if it happens at all) would increase night time lows while changing day time highs very little, and warm winters while increasing summer temps very little in high latitudes. This is confirmed by historical and geological evidence showing that this was the case during those periods when the earth was slightly warmer than it is now, and that the biosphere not only thrived in the tropics despite the higher tems, but even more so in the higher latitudes.
6. Historical records clearly show that cold periods resulted in the fall of entire civilizations as a rule, while in warm periods civilizations not only thrived, but expanded across a greater portion of the earth.
Conclusions:
Low CO2 = bad.
No CO2 = Very VERY bad.
High CO2 = good.
Cold = bad
Warm = good.
Feel free to falsify.
Norway rat,
You don’t even understand the scientific method. The evidence for my hypothesis is that there has been no global harm from the rise in CO2. It is up to you to attempt to falsify my hypothesis. If you can, cowboy. Your evidence-free bickering is just impotent distraction. Put up your evidence, or shut up, rat.
Izen is not even wrong, he’s from another universe:
So your hypothesis can be restated as –
Any change in climate and rise in global temperatures is harmless and beneficial.
– Unless you are starting with the hidden assumption that the measured changes in energy flux at the surface and TOA will have NO effect on the climate?
Whoever said “no effect”? Answer: Izen, who typically tries to fabricate my stated position.
The idea that a warming of the climate is exclusively beneficial, or at least harmless is refuted by the historical problems of desertification and drought during past warmer climate periods.
Because human large-scale agricultural methods tend to assume a constant climate any change will tend to be disruptive, as with the warming and drought causing the dustbowl and depression of the 30s.
Once again Izen confuses local climates with global harm due to anthropogenic CO2. Izen needs to go back to school. A warmer planet = more evaporation = more precipitation. Cherry-picking one location and then extrapolating the result planet-wide is a typically mendacious tactic of the alarmist crowd.
“…YOUR hypothesis is if you explicitly add the hypothesis that rising CO2 has NO effect on the climate.”
Cut ‘n’ paste where I said that, Izen. Your juvenile attempts to set up strawmen and knock them down fails as always. If you’re goiung to dispute what I wrote, cut and paste exactly what I wrote, instead of restating it and fabricating it in your own corrupted terms.
Smokey,
Bedtime approaching here, but I’ll be back tomorrow. However, your job is to back up clause 2 of your hypothesis, that levels up to 560ppm (or there abouts) will have not harm. I can cite lots of studies to the contrary w/respect to crop plants…
Norway rat,
You have the scientific method backward as usual. It is up to you to falsify my hypothesis, it is not up to me to prove a negative.
Post any empirical, testable evidence [no models] of crops being harmed by CO2 levels of 560 ppmv. I look forward to easily countering anything you can find with much better evidence. I’d post it right now, but that wouldn’t be as much fun. ☺
Rattus Norvegicus says:
November 4, 2011 at 9:08 pm
” I can cite lots of studies to the contrary w/respect to crop plants…”
This I am dying to see, and will follow up. If you are proposing that elevated CO2 levels are not significantly beneficial to all plant life, you will need extraordinary evidence indeed to counter the massive literature attesting that they are.
While one occasionally hears that other factors can be limiting, this spurious objection overlooks the obvious fact that human farmers are continually, and successfully, looking for ways to optimize their crop yields, and many crops are already grown in near optimum conditions with few limiting factors other than the low ambient level of CO2, so that any increase in CO2 levels will improve the most limiting factor. Not to mention which elevated CO2 improves plants drought resistance by enabling the stomata to remain smaller while still obtaining sufficient CO2.
This is all well settled science, and is only denied by tinfoil hat wearers who think the moon landing was faked:)
davidmhoffer:
This thread seems to have moved on the the old add C02 to your grow op advice but , a few things.
Spenser’s error ,you say, was minor. By minor did you mean that his error was large enough to change the reality of global warming to the magical thinking of cooling? I thought you did. In this case Spenser scored on hid own net.
Spenser agreed almost immediately, you say. By almost immediately do you mean the delay for years before Spenser finally admitted to his error? I thought you did. In this case Spenser’s reputation was damaged by the delay of game penalty.
Trenerth is the leader of the modelers you say. There are quite a few models and quite a few modelers. Europe, Asia even gasp Canada. Spenser even has a model. Hard to believe that Spenser means Trenberth when he says ” take me to your leader”. Trenberth demanded a resigmation. Hochey fight and we all know how silly they are.
Speaking of all the modelers, some, not me of course, use the term hockey team. Since climategate , reading climate blogs every day I am always amazed by the new names that pop up. Someone will point out a new publication or a new conference with all new names. The name should be changed from hockey team to hockey league.
Speaking of hockey; Doesn’t Sydney Crosby remind you of Micheal Mann. Pennsyvania locations. Top players in their respective leagues. Both targets of cheap shots by players with less skill.
david, you seem antagonistic to Muir. How about Muller and BEST. Again , a scientist wanting to examine skeptically did not demand that Jones or Hansen spoon feed them.Much better than some silly line by line audit. The result showed that the warming is in the temperature record, not the code. A game winning goal surely.
Keep your stick on the ice:
John McManus
Robert E. Phelan November 3, 2011 at 6:07 am
“The university was prepared to hand over Dr. Michaels e-mails as soon as Greenpeace had paid a very modest processing fee.”
You need to get your facts sorted.
Climate Change and the Freedom of Information Act at U.Va.
J Bowers says: November 5, 2011 at 11:30 am
You need to get your facts sorted.
Climate Change and the Freedom of Information Act at U.Va.
Q: Did U.Va. give Michaels’ emails to Greenpeace?
A. No. After a series of emails and narrowing of the group’s request to reduce its costs, and a letter confirming what the amount of those costs would be, U.Va. heard nothing more from Greenpeace.
Uhh, and that contradicts my statement how? UVa did not resist the Greenpeace request and Greenpeace dropped their request after Cuccinelli filed his action.
Well that depends on what Greenpeace were asking for, and whether they were willing to accept emails with personal information and other FOIA exempt details redacted, or even not those emails that had any personal info at all. Do you know, or are you tarring Greenpeace with ATI’s brush? The emails ATI have so far have been let loose on the world with email addresses, etc, intact, which puts them one rung below the CRU hackers on the decency ladder, IMHO.
John McManus aka rumleyfips;
1. CO2 is pumped into greenhouses to increase FOOD production. Your drive by insinuation that I am handing out “grow op” advice is insulting, unfounded, and changes not one bit the fact that almost all plant life thrives in high levels of CO2.
2. Spencer’s errors, the ones he found in his own work and the ones found by others were minor in that they did not appreciably change the over all results. Your insinuation that I meant it as something else cannot be logicaly derrived from anything I said. Your suggestion to the contrary is testament to your willingness to put words in another person’s mouth in order to win an argument. If you cannot win an argument with a person based on what they said, then you expose yourself as just another troll pushing an agenda with nothing of value to bring to the debate other than disinformation.
3. I said Trenberth is the leader of the modeling community because he is. Check out his current position at the IPCC, a position to which he was elected by acclamation, and a position that controls the data and how it is used by the modeling community world wide provided that they play nice with Trenberth. Spencer published a paper that was not to Trenberth’s liking, and the editor of the journal (Remote Sensing), one Wolfgang Wagner, resigned, citing as the only flaw in the paper that “modelers” were not consulted. Nearly the next day, Trenberth began bragging the he had received a personal apology for allowing the paper to be published from Wagner. A bit of investigation turns up that Wagner heads the climate modelling group at Vienna University of Technology, and is managing a major modelling project that draws its data, and is beholden to, Trenberth’s committee at the IPCC. Anyone with half a brain who followed that sequence of events can see who did what, and exactly how much power Trenberth has, not to mention the willingness to use it.
4. No, Sydney Crosby doesn’t remind me of Michael Mann. One is a hockey player and the other a bully who demands we believe everything he says, but refuses to show us the proof of what he says.
5. Whining that I’ve said something in response to Muir, but not BEST is just childish. Muir made a claim and I responded. Your attempt at confusing the matter is another example of your unwillingness to debate the actual facts. I could as easily respond with “oh yeah, you quote BEST, but what about RSS?” It is a nonsense argument and simply an attempt to change the subject rather than admit that your current argument is riddled with holes.
Keep your stick on the ice John, but stop pretending you are an NHL prospect when you can’t even score a goal in Pee Wee unless you cheat.
rumleyfips said
November 5, 2011 at 11:10 am :
Again , a scientist wanting to examine skeptically did not demand that Jones or Hansen spoon feed them.Much better than some silly line by line audit. The result showed that the warming is in the temperature record, not the code.
Speaking of which, some time ago, I “hand-rolled” my own simple temperature anomaly gridding/averaging app. Wanted to see what a really “simple” minded gridding/averaging procedure (minus all the bells and whistles that NASA/CRU/etc throw in) would produce vs. the official NASA results. The app that coded up is simple enough to be broken down into a series of homework assignments for a first-year computer programming class. Ran both the *raw* GHCN and the recently released *raw* CRU data through it.
Here are the results: http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/2210/mycrumyghcnnasaghcn.jpg
My own results produced from the GHCN *raw* data are plotted in blue.
My own results with the recently-released CRU *raw* data are plotted in red-orange.
The official NASA/GISS land-temperature results (copied/pasted from the NASA/GISS) web-site are plotted in yellow.
In addition, I’ve experimented with the temperature data, comparing rural vs. urban, effects of the “dropped stations”, throwing out 90% of stations at random, etc., and the results have all been very similar. The bottom line is, no matter how you “slice and dice” the data, you get very consistent warming results. The fact that the results produced by my very simple-minded routine match NASA’s so closely is a very strong indication that all of the data adjustments/homogenization/whatever that NASA employs have very little impact on the final global-average results.
The global-warming signal in the temperature data really is quite robust, and does not depend on any kind of special “black magic” data manipulation techniques. A very straightforward gridding/averaging process applied to raw temperature data really will pull the global-warming signal out of the data quite nicely.
davidmhoffere:
So you now don’t refer tp Mann asart of the hockey team?
Good luck with that.
I don’t know or care about your horticultural pursuits. The fact is CO2 pumped into gro ops is a cultural icon. You know you can lead a whore to cultur but you can’t make a horse drink- or something.
By the way, do you have to slice Spencer’s model twice before it has no sidesÉ No it is alraedy pretty thin.
Keep your stick on the ice:
John McManus
ps. in climate `skeptisism the AKA is usually an epethit for someone not using their real name. My real name is John McMaanus. As Tony says I live in a rural backwater, The woods of Nova Scotia- he has checked up on me. Rumleyfips comes from use at other sites. Sorry to confuse you
J Bowers,
I read your link up to where it said:
“In November 2009, a computer at the University of East Anglia (UK) Hadley Climatic Research Unit was hacked…”
Incredible.
The Climategate email dump was clearly an inside job. Because if a hacker accessed the email system once, he could do it again and certainly would, given the publicity that resulted. Also, only selected emails were leaked. Many others were not, no doubt to protect the identity of the whistleblower.
The university is still posting the fiction that Michael Mann was exonerated in its fake investigation. If there is ever a real investigation in an adversarial setting, with witnesses for both sides being subpoenaed and cross-examined, Mann is going down for the count.
Smokie:
Don’t you think that an insider whistleblower would post all the stuff. The climategate emails wer e carefully edited( at some cost) so unsophisticated readers could make silly assertations. Anyone with an IQ above ambient temerature could see that the emails before and the emails after were not published.
Why? Well context would show .. nothing really.
So: huge slush funds financincing ( well they said they were talented) hackers and the best they could come up with was ( I paraphrase) I should punch that idiot ).
Good work.
John McManus
Caerbannog:
Glad to hear from you. I admire your work .
John McManus
Jaohn McManus/Rumleyfips;
The climategate emails wer e carefully edited( at some cost) so unsophisticated readers could make silly assertations.>>>
Bull. Not one of the authors of those emails has claimed that their words were edited. In fact the opposite. They’ve attempted to spin the meaning of what they said, but not a single one has claimed that the words in those emails were edited.
You’ve descended from semi-clever half truths to outright lies.
“The Climategate email dump was clearly an inside job.”
Smokey, you should send your evidence to the Norfolk Constabulary and the Metropolitan Police’s Central e-Crime unit. I’m sure they’d be quite fascinated to read it.
http://www.norfolk.police.uk/contactus.aspx
http://www.met.police.uk/pceu/index.htm
rumleyfips says:
November 5, 2011 at 12:47 pm
davidmhoffere:
So you now don’t refer tp Mann asart of the hockey team?
Good luck with that.>>>
Where in this discussion did I make reference to “the team” or Mann’s membership in it? I didn’t. Once again you put words in my mouth and then make a sarcastic remark. How about the legitimate issues I raised regarding things like sets of data inserted into data sets backwards? Why is it that you studiously avoid the actual issues while continuing to distract attention from those issues by just making stuff up?
rumleyfips;
I don’t know or care about your horticultural pursuits. The fact is CO2 pumped into gro ops is a cultural icon. You know you can lead a whore to cultur but you can’t make a horse drink- or something.>>>
You are debating climate issues on a climate site. The research into CO2 concentrations and how the effect plant growth is a major component of the debate. You are once again sidestepping the actual issue which is that there is substantive evidence that plants evolved for the most part in much higher concentrations of CO2 than what we are supposed to consider background levels. Commercial greenhouse operators world wide drive their CO2 concentrations into the thousands of PPM for the specific reasong that it dramaticaly improves production. These are scientific facts born out not just by experimentation, but by commercial greenhouse operations around the world which do what they do because it is profitable, not because it is politically correct. If you were to do some research into the matter and educate yourself some, you would know that this is a standard part of the climate knowledge base, and your attempt to paint me as a “grow op” operator shows either your ignorance of the issues, your blatant attempt to distract attention from the facts, or both.
rumleyfips;
By the way, do you have to slice Spencer’s model twice before it has no sidesÉ No it is alraedy pretty thin.>>>
It disagrees slightly with RSS which uses different satellite data and different methods. I’m assuming by “model” here you mean UAH. If you are referring to Spencer’s paper in Remote Sensing, that wasn’t a model, that was analysis of actual measured data. If you want to be credible at all (and so far you aren’t) you should start by learning the difference between the two.
rumleyfips;
keep your stick on the ice>>>
I wish you would. All I’m seeing is amateur hooking, slashing, spearing and remarks made from ignorance. Put up or shut up. I asked you or anyone else to defend the well known flaws in Mann’s work, specific flaws, and you’ve done nothing but change the subject with half truths and twisted logic and saracastic remarks rebutting things I never even said.
UVa did not agree to give any Emails immediately to Greenpeace or ATI upon payment of a fee to cover costs of EXAMINING the Emails to ascertain if any of them fell within the FOI definition. The response to Greenpeace (and a similar one to ATI) has an interesting paragraph
“Because of the breadth and scope of the FOIA request, it will take some time to complete the search of the records. Please understand that the cost estimate covers only accessing and searching for the requested records. There is no way for the University to predict the volume of records we may find that are, in fact, responsive to your request and are not protected from disclosure by law or for which a FOIA or other lawful exemption does not apply.”
In other words, please hand over your bank account.
The interesting aspect of the situation is this rather strange idea that the Climategate e-mails were allegedley stolen by the person who delivered them to the public. Look at it like this. The Climategate e-mail was subject to a FOIA type law, because the e-mail was public property as a consequence of being funded by public monies. CRU employees and perhaps others allegedley violated the FOIA law by deliberately and sometimes maliciously conspiring to withhold disclosure and delivery of the e-mail and even threatening to destroy the e-mail before permitting it to be released and disclosed to the public who paid for its production. The reality of the situation is that people like Phil Jones is on record threatening to take away the e-mail which was the rightful property of the public and hoarding it for their own selfish purposes. Doesn’t that make the thieves of the e-mail the very people responsible for taking possession of them away from the public who paid for them and had a right to possess them under the FOIA law/s? Why wouldn’t the Norfolk Constabulary be more interested in the theft of public property by the people caught converting public property to their personal use and obstructing the FOIA releases of the public property to the public?
J Bowers says:
November 5, 2011 at 3:45 pm
“The Climategate email dump was clearly an inside job.”
Smokey, you should send your evidence to the Norfolk Constabulary and the Metropolitan Police’s Central e-Crime unit. I’m sure they’d be quite fascinated to read it.>>>
For anyone with a background in Information Technology in general, and e-mail systems and security in particular, all the information that is public points strongly to an inside job. Circumstantial though the evidence may be, it is very strong, and there is little circumstantial evidence to support the notion of an outside hacker. In fact, if you consider cases of IT security breaches that were solved (for lack of a better term) the vast majority of them were either inside jobs, or else accomplished through the assistance of someone on the inside. A hack of this sort from outside, with no inside assistance, is almost unheard of in the real world. IT security breaches are nearly 100% inside jobs, or aided and abetted by someone on the inside.
rumleyfips;
“I don’t know or care about your horticultural pursuits. The fact is CO2 pumped into gro ops is a cultural icon.”
Not a cultural icon so much as common practice, in both legitimate and covert indoor growing setups. The reason is quite simple – regardless of the plant type, CO2 supplementation is extremely effective. I have seen nothing from either you or rattus to even attempt to contradict this. You claim you you can, but all you can do is make smart arsed comments about grow ops — does the fact that dope growers use CO2 mean it doesn’t work? If not, what point are you trying to make?
Try asking the many people who handled the released e-mails on the blogs and in the books, and you’ll likely find it was a relatively quick and very inexpensive effort. You exaggerate profusely.
Yes, we’ve already caught the whiff of your contempt and disdain for the readers. Of course, the “silly assertions” are your own.
Ah, there you go again with the arrogance of assuming your colossal intelligence endows you with an overwhelmingly superior insight into all that is worth knowing. I don’t suppose you would be interested in noting that a high IQ has been discovered by scientific researchers to make a person more prone to mental illness and erratic behavior, and a high IQ is not necessarily an indicator the person is capable of exercising good judgment or commonsense.
If you weren’t blinded by your own sense of superiority and intelligence, you might have realized someone or some people may already have more of the information and is just waiting for CRU hang their own reputations before releasing more of the information. Then again, perhaps it is safe for CRU and the others to continue on as before.
LOL, dream on. Never interrupt….
Well, if you know how they were financed, then you must already know exactly who “they” are and have reported their identities and method/s of financing to the Norfolk Constabulary. If not, then perhaps you need to retract the baseless accusation and apologize for attempting to mislead the readers. Also, the conspiracy to obstruct the disclosure of the public financed information subject to FOIA disclosure was an illegal act, which is substantially a greater offense than the mere insults and cowardly posturing as a bully with the threats to punch someone.