CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY
DELEGATES at the 18th annual UN climate gabfest at the dismal, echoing Doha conference center – one of the least exotic locations chosen for these rebarbatively repetitive exercises in pointlessness – have an Oops! problem.
No, not the sand-flies. Not the questionable food. Not the near-record low attendance. The Oops! problem is this. For the past 16 of the 18-year series of annual hot-air sessions about hot air, the world’s hot air has not gotten hotter. There has been no global warming. At all. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.
The equations of classical physics do not require the arrow of time to flow only forward. However, observation indicates this is what always happens. So tomorrow’s predicted warming that has not happened today cannot have caused yesterday’s superstorms, now, can it?
That means They can’t even get away with claiming that tropical storm Sandy and other recent extreme-weather happenings were All Our Fault. After more than a decade and a half without any global warming at all, one does not need to be a climate scientist to know that global warming cannot have been to blame.
Or, rather, one needs not to be a climate scientist. The wearisomely elaborate choreography of these yearly galah sessions has followed its usual course this time, with a spate of suspiciously-timed reports in the once-mainstream media solemnly recording that “Scientists Say” their predictions of doom are worse than ever. But the reports are no longer front-page news. The people have tuned out.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC), the grim, supranational bureaucracy that makes up turgid, multi-thousand-page climate assessments every five years, has not even been invited to Doha. Oversight or calculated insult? It’s your call.
IPeCaC is about to churn out yet another futile tome. And how will its upcoming Fifth Assessment Report deal with the absence of global warming since a year after the Second Assessment report? Simple. The global-warming profiteers’ bible won’t mention it.
There will be absolutely nothing about the embarrassing 16-year global-warming stasis in the thousands of pages of the new report. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.
Instead, the report will hilariously suggest that up to 1.4 Cº of the 0.6 Cº global warming observed in the past 60 years was manmade.
No, that is not a typesetting error. The new official meme will be that if it had not been for all those naughty emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases the world would have gotten up to 0.8 Cº cooler since the 1950s. Yeah, right.
If you will believe that, as the Duke of Wellington used to say, you will believe anything.
The smarter minds at the conference (all two of us) are beginning to ask what it was that the much-trumpeted “consensus” got wrong. The answer is that two-thirds of the warming predicted by the models is uneducated guesswork. The computer models assume that any warming causes further warming, by various “temperature feedbacks”.
Trouble is, not one of the supposed feedbacks can be established reliably either by measurement or by theory. A growing body of scientists think feedbacks may even be net-negative, countervailing against the tiny direct warming from greenhouse gases rather than arbitrarily multiplying it by three to spin up a scare out of not a lot.
IPeCaC’s official prediction in its First Assessment Report in 1990 was that the world would warm at a rate equivalent to 0.3 Cº/decade, or more than 0.6 Cº by now.
But the real-world, measured outturn was 0.14 Cº/decade, and just 0.3 Cº in the quarter of a century since 1990: less than half of what the “consensus” had over-predicted.
In 2008, the world’s “consensus” climate modelers wrote a paper saying ten years without global warming was to be expected (though their billion-dollar brains had somehow failed to predict it). They added that 15 years or more without global warming would establish a discrepancy between real-world observation and their X-boxes’ predictions. You will find their paper in NOAA’s State of the Climate Report for 2008.
By the modelers’ own criterion, then, HAL has failed its most basic test – trying to predict how much global warming will happen.
Yet Ms. Christina Figurehead, chief executive of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, says “centralization” of global governing power (in her hands, natch) is the solution. Solution to what?
And what solution? Even if the world were to warm by 2.2 Cº this century (for IPeCaC will implicitly cut its central estimate from 2.8 Cº in the previous Assessment Report six years ago), it would be at least ten times cheaper and more cost-effective to adapt to warming’s consequences the day after tomorrow than to try to prevent it today.
It is the do-nothing option that is scientifically sound and economically right. And nothing is precisely what 17 previous annual climate yatteramas have done. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.
This year’s 18th yadayadathon will be no different. Perhaps it will be the last. In future, Ms. Figurehead, practice what you preach, cut out the carbon footprint from all those travel miles, go virtual, and hold your climate chatternooga chit-chats on FaceTwit.
Support CFACT’s mission here.
rgbatduke says December 3, 2012 at 7:53 am: “… but I also think that in the particular case of Viet Nam, we should have been fighting on the other side”
======================================================
I see, on the side of the North Vietnamese communists, to help them take over the South Vietnam, establish a totalitarian state and slaughter millions of people.
Thank you for helping the readers get to know you better.
Sorry, I meant “get to know you better”.
spvincent says:
December 3, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Werner Brozek
No I do not agree that there has been no significant warming since 1995. I’m not quite sure what your basis for that assertion is (nor why you chose 1995 as the start point) but in every dataset I look at there’s a long term increase over that period.
I think we are discussing definitions here. The parts below are from another entry as shown. Keep in mind that HadCRUT3 and RSS have values even closer to 0. Look at every single number below. Then look at the +/-. Note that the +/- number in every case is larger than the first number. What this means is that +0.109 +/- 0.129 could range from -0.02 to +0.238. In other words, it COULD be 0. And with that being the case, you CANNOT be 95% sure that there has been warming. In this case, if he plotted what I think he plotted, you may be possibly 93% sure there has been warming, but NOT 95% sure. And if you cannot be 95% sure, then we say “ there has been no significant warming”. Now as for choosing 1995, it is since then that the warming was not significant. It IS significant since 1994, at least on Hadcrut4 as far as I know.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
December 3, 2012 at 12:28 am
From spvincent on December 2, 2012 at 9:08 pm:
Taking the Hadcrut4 dataset, here are the trend values in degrees C/decade over five closely-related time periods.
1995-2012 +0.109 +/- 0.129
1996-2012 +0.107 +/- 0.129
1997-2012 +0.058 +/- 0.142
1998-2012 +0.052 +/- 0.153
1999-2012 +0.095 +/- 0.162
Let’s look at a satellite-derived dataset (UAH)
1995-2012 +0.139 +/- 0.203
1996-2012 +0.138 +/- 0.227
1997-2012 +0.106 +/- 0.252
1998-2012 +0.063 +/- 0.153
1999-2012 +0.179 +/- 0.262
davidmhoffer says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Or pushing it the other way, to what level would CO2 have to drop to give us 6 degrees of cooling?
1/2 x 400 = 200 = 1 degree
1/2 x 200 = 100 = 1 degree
50 = 1 degree
25 = 1 degree
12 = 1 degree
6 = 1 degree.
Hard to imagine that CO2 is the controlling factor in temperature–perhaps water has something to do with it! (Plants will be eliminated at <150 ppm and the temperature will have dropped less than 2 degrees.)
davidmhoffer says, December 3, 2012 at 11:58 am: “What a great thread!”
=========================================
Yes, David, it is, I absolutely support your opinion! Actually, not just this one, but each one, where we can freely express our criticism of AGW and related issues.
Now let me tell you, what I do not like on this thread: everything (no, just kidding). Seriously, there is one thing that bothers me a little bit. A mean this central point celebrated by our beloved Christopher: “For the past 16 of the 18-year series of annual hot-air sessions about hot air, the world’s hot air has not gotten hotter. There has been no global warming.”
I am just thinking, what if someone posted an article “Christopher has not raped any woman for the past 16 days”. I am not sure if Christopher would be amused. Neither am I with his “16 years”. But OK, I will certainly get over it.
HeneryP
Here it is again: Analyses that can be reached at the link (highlighted in red) given at http://www.switched.com/profile/2996642/ include a simple equation based on rational physics that, without considering any influence from CO2 whatsoever and using only one independent variable, has calculated average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 88% (R2 = 0.88, correlation coefficient = 0.938). Including the influence of CO2 (a second independent variable) increased the accuracy to 88.5%
Weather is complex. Average global temperature is comparatively simple.
Greg House says:
December 3, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Neither am I with his “16 years”.
I think I understand where you are coming from. But keep in mind that NOAA set the “goal post” at 15 years. Was the goal post too high or too wide? That is not for me to say. However the “goal post” was set and Earth scored a “goal” depending on your perspective of course.
Greg House says:
December 3, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Wow, Mr. House–if that’s your logic, no wonder Warmistas have no credibility.
I also believe you owe Christopher a public apology. Comparing his behavior to the likes of Mr. Gore does your side no favors and proves you are one facinorous dude.
(It just shows your side has lost the debate.)
Oh, I forgot to wish you a good day. On purpose.
“I am just thinking, what if someone posted an article “Christopher has not raped any woman for the past 16 days”.”
Seems pretty obnoxious just to make a point.
The 16 year benchmark was defined by “them” not Mr. Monckton.
PS
I agree with others who suggest archiving rgb’s comments.
The man can think it and type it faster than I can read it.
His, and other regulars here @ur momisugly WUWT, are “Rosetta Stone” reference material for part timers like me.
RockyRoad says, December 3, 2012 at 7:58 pm: “Wow, Mr. House–if that’s your logic, no wonder Warmistas have no credibility.”
=====================================================
Sorry, RockyRoad, but I am afraid, you completely misunderstood my point.
Well done Mr R.G.Batduke!
I don’t know how you have accumulated so much knowledge but I think I will be saving this page for future reference.
From spvincent on December 3, 2012 at 2:13 pm:
How old is your copy of the Book of Immutable (C)AGW Predictions? The tropospheric “hot spot” never materialized, the predictions failed, it’s been awhile since anyone around here has tried to claim that “proof” as it doesn’t exist. See this article, “Atmospheric Hotspot” section and Figure 6: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/
You need one of the newer revisions where that “same as they ever were” prediction got dropped.
And yeah, it is hard to quantify what contributed how much warming. The climate science of the IPCC reports still doesn’t know much about the effect of clouds. Dr. Roy Spencer figured out a mere 1-2% decrease in global cloud cover could account for all of the late-20th century global warming, and it’s sure looking like the decrease did happen:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/04/spencers-posited-1-2-cloud-cover-variation-found/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/20/spencers-cloud-hypothesis-confirmed/
Reputable climate scientists will not deny the physics that state the greenhouse effect of CO₂ is logarithmic, nor the evidence said effect is saturated, further increases in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations will not yield any significant global temperature increases by themselves.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/support-for-the-saturated-greenhouse-effect-leaves-the-likelihood-of-agw-tipping-points-in-the-cold/
The (C)AGW conjecture relies on unproven proposed positive feedbacks, and CO₂ alone will not give the temperature increases to hit the imagined “tipping points”. Meanwhile real-world observations show there are negative feedbacks regulating global temperature, don’t expect that “catastrophic” warming anytime soon. Here’s info on a peer-reviewed published hypothesis about a major negative feedback mechanism:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/07/further-evidence-for-my-thunderstorm-thermostat-hypothesis/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/24/willis-publishes-his-thermostat-hypothesis-paper/
You said:
The data you presented as saying there was STILL an overall upward trend, showed there was no overall upward trend, as none of those values exceeded the uncertainty. You were claiming that data proves a warming trend.
I don’t know what “Open Letter” you’re referring to, but certainly this data does not disprove any warming trend. With uncertainty that large, all it can state is there might have been warming, or cooling, but either way what happened was not significant. This data does not disprove a warming trend, but it cannot support one either. Without evidence that supports a warming trend, the default assumption must be there was no warming trend.
A lot of words in this thread. Would´nt it be better for the most prominent of you to gather your stats and publish it in some good journal? I truly mean it, if everything we believe is wrong then we should get to hear the news. Just wrap up your data and add the necessary mechanisms and physics and off you go. It should be of utmost importance to know the true data and mechanisms of “no warming” and sea level rise being only fluctuations, and certainly not meltwater from glaciers and all that stuff. When reading the thread (and other similar threads) the reality is set up to be like an origami, one group folds it into an eagle and the other ones fold it into an sparrow. Fine folding, but its only one sheet of paper and It can´t be both at the same time.
R.Brown says
there isn’t the slightest bit of doubt that it (i.e. the GH effect) exists.
Henry says
I did not say that it does not exist.
It does exist. Especially at night in winter when it is cloudy.
But in the case of CO2,
there is also radiative cooling, due to absorption in the UV, 1-2 um, and 4-5 um. I am saying that the cooling due to back radiation in these regions of the molecule that goes on 12 hours per day might be just as much as the warming (or:delay in cooling) due to the back radiation coming from earth 14-16 um, that goes on 24/7. So WHERE is your balance sheet that you say does “exist and is well understood?”
On top of that we have an increase in vegetation over the past 50 years which has been considerable.
Plants and trees need both warmth and CO2 to grow. Or did you ever see a tree grow where it is very cold? So how much biological cooling was caused by the CO2 due to the increase in vegetation over the past 50 years?
.
You see what the problem is? You cannot say: if there is an increase in CO2 it must be getting warmer (even though that might be very small) until you have first proven it by doing some physical testing. The closed box experiments do not tell you how much radiative cooling is caused by the increase in CO2. And you cannot “calculate” that which has never been measured.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
Jorge:
Your ignorance is astounding. At December 4, 2012 at 3:22 am you write
A lot of words in this thread. Would´nt it be better for the most prominent of you to gather your stats and publish it in some good journal? I truly mean it, if everything we believe is wrong then we should get to hear the news. Just wrap up your data and add the necessary mechanisms and physics and off you go. It should be of utmost importance to know the true data and mechanisms of “no warming” and sea level rise being only fluctuations, and certainly not meltwater from glaciers and all that stuff. When reading the thread (and other similar threads) the reality is set up to be like an origami, one group folds it into an eagle and the other ones fold it into an sparrow. Fine folding, but its only one sheet of paper and It can´t be both at the same time.
Firstly, many of us DO publish in journals; e.g. a list of over 1,100 papers sceptical of catastrophic AGW and published in peer reviewed journals is at
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Conauth%2Conload&id=I0_1354626782104&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogger.com&pfname=%2Fnavbar-iframe
These publications are achieved despite the problems of getting such papers published against the activities of the Team to prevent such publication. The climategate emails reveal the extreme methods they have been using to block publications which do not support their “cause”.
An example of a paper blocked by nefarious method and explanation of how it was blocked is at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm
There has been no global warming for over 16 years while atmospheric CO2 concentration has continued to rise. Think about what that indicates before posting more of your ignorant and offensive twaddle.
Richard
R.Brown says
or if temperatures actively drop (as you perhaps wishfully thinking insist that they will) there will be at first an orderly retreat
Henry says
I get the impression that you think a) I don’t know much about statistics, and b) I did not take a random sample (of 47 weather stations) and c) I fiddled around with the results to make them say what I wanted them to say.
LOL
I wish that were true.
I wish I did not have to be the prophet of doom. Although I don’t really know if -0.035 degrees K per annum globally over the next 8 years really will be such a disaster.
Is that much, Werner?
I estimate it will be about -0.3 by 2020. My wife laughs at me, that I even worry about it.
But I do fear that some places will become too cold to farm\. e.g
http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html
My sample (of 47 weather stations) was random, although I will admit to carefully looking first if the daily records of the weather station was (more or less) complete. If there were too many missing data I threw the sample away. That was fair? I balanced the sample by latitude and by 70/30 @sea and inland. I figured longitude does not matter, do you know why? Antarctica was also not included because I could not find data there. Why did I stop at 47?
Simple, … because I knew enough….. somebody (from Above) had thrown me a ball and I was seeing the curve….
To prove my honesty, if you are interested, I can provide you with my tables as reported here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/04/23/global-cooling-is-here/
(all results of 47 weather stations analysed)
so you can check each individual result.
To quote from the above report:
We note from my 3 tables below that Maxima, Means and Minima have all turned negative (from warming to cooling) between 12 and 22 years ago. The change in signal is best observed in that of the Maxima where we can see a gradual decline of the maximum temperatures from +0.036 degrees C per annum (over the last 38 years) to -0.016 (when taken over the last 12 years).
If we plot the global measurements for the change in Maxima, Means and Minima against the relevant time periods, it can be shown that the best fit for each of the curves is given by a polynominal of the 2nd order (parabolic fit).
Namely, for maxima it is
y= -0.00006 X2+ 0.00480X -0.06393
r²= 0.997
Update
I have added a few more stations, (including Washington DC) which brought my correlation to r²= 0.998
The speed of warming/cooling for maxima now is 0.036 degrees C/annum from 1974 (38 yrs), 0.029 from 1980 (32 yrs), 0.014 from 1990 (22 years) and -0.016 from 2000 (12 years).
end quote
RSS and Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4 all show a negative trend from 2002, mostly showing a fall of ca. 0.1 degree C over the past decade. My own data set shows we fell already almost 0.2 degrees C since 2000.
Hopefully the polynomial quoted above, even though it has unbelievable high correlation, is still incorrect. Let us hope it is rather this sine wave:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
which seems very likely, if I look at the results from Anchorage from 1942
( shown a bit below the global sine wave in blog quoted above).
We are cooling. Whether you like it or not. And my tables say the speed of this cooling is at its highest rate, just about right now.
Jorge, I don’t see a lot of journals publishing such items as “Pigs don’t fly” or “Grass is usually green”, for the same reason that newspapers don’t often publish “Dog bites man”.
To put it another way, journals don’t usually publish things like “Speed of light determined to be approximately 186,000 miles/sec”, because that is something so basic and fundamental (in the modern era) that it hardly needs noting.
Now, newspapers DO publish “man bites dog” stories, being unusual and different, and most journals seem pretty eager to publish “climate warming, planet is doomed” type items. Why, just look at the breathtaking results of a catastrophically warming planet as endlessly documented by Nature (and for that matter, National Geographic in endless full color gloriousific splendor).
What they won’t publish, however, is “We had it all wrong, there’s not actually any sign of problematic warming and the planet is just fine”, or “just kidding, that whole CO2=temperature thing was pretty much disproved long ago”, and especially not: “Our entire monolithic edifice that we have been building for decades turns out to have been built on sand, and is now crumbling before our eyes”.
Your own sarcasm notwithstanding, there’s no NEED to “know the true data and mechanisms of “no warming” ” as you put it, because the majority of people involved with anything scientific know that the onus is on those claiming there is a problem to prove it. So far, they have failed to do anything other than spread low-level panic and confusion.
If these self-proclaimed “climate scientists” (of whom there were exactly ZERO just a few years ago) were to actually study the science of climate instead of radical advocacy, we’d probably have some pretty decent knowledge by now of just what drives climate and climatic changes. However, what is becoming increasingly clear as each passing year with increased CO2 and no significant warming passes is that CO2 and warming, while correlated once, are now not.
You can’t prove causation with correlation, but you NEED correlation to prove causation. There is no correlation, and the continuing search for “confounding factors” is getting tiresome.
It’s not up to the “skeptic” to show causation, although I for one would like to know better just what things are driving the long-documented cycles recorded historically. But come on… before you can attribute warming to CO2, it would sure help if there actually WAS warming…
And don’t even get me started on the entire “For absolute certain CO2 is increasing due to human activity”, because even among skeptics that meme is getting a bit tiresome. Usually it’s just tossed in there as a given.
What we DO know is that the relatively reliable instrumental record of CO2, which began only in the 50s, has shown a relatively steady increase in atmospheric CO2, with clearly visible seasonal variations. Fine. Of course, since we don’t have any reliable record prior to this time, we have nothing to compare it to, since long-ago attempts to measure atmospheric CO2 seem inconclusive and probably tainted, but definitely don’t seem to show any clear evidence that pre-industrial levels were 280ppm.
And the relatively reliable instrumental record of temperature, which began only in 1979, has shown a few increases, and a few steady phases. But currently we are seeing a temperature plateau for HALF of the satellite era’s data, and that is significant.
While we’re at it, the relatively reliable instrumental record of sea level also is only about 30 years old, and is STILL not rising at an accelerating rate, quite the contrary. Instead it seems to be about the same rate as estimated for centuries.
There are things you KNOW, but aren’t so. Keeping an eye out for these things is sound advice that more people should follow.
So WHERE is your balance sheet that you say does “exist and is well understood?”
Read Grant Perry’s book, look at the data therein. I’m just sayin’… kind of difficult to argue with direct spectroscopy and the integration of a power spectrum. But believe what you like.
I do not think that CO_2 acts as a net cooling molecule, and it does seem like this is a unlikely error for radiation physicists to make. If you think otherwise, please provide a quantitative argument. During the day, CO_2 and/or water vapor and ozone become a mechanism that contributes to the warming of the air and may well divert some energy from the surface to the atmosphere, but there the ALR and the fact that the troposphere is cold compared to the surface prevents CO_2 from functioning as a net cooling molecule. Well, that and the shift in spectral peak from absorption from a source at 6000 or so K followed by emission from a source at a few hundred degrees K, plus the SB law.
rgb
We are cooling. Whether you like it or not. And my tables say the speed of this cooling is at its highest rate, just about right now.
And you clearly haven’t understood a thing I’ve said this time, as well. Sigh.
rgb
HenryP says:
December 4, 2012 at 5:37 am
Although I don’t really know if -0.035 degrees K per annum globally over the next 8 years really will be such a disaster.
Is that much, Werner?
I estimate it will be about -0.3 by 2020.
Just to clarify something: You say “-0.035 degrees K per annum globally over the next 8 years” so that would be a drop of 0.3 from today. And the latest Hadcrut3 average is 0.4, so a drop of 0.3 from that would give 0.1, which happened in 1993. On the other hand, an anomaly of -0.3 happened in 1964. CO2 went up since both dates so growing food should be better, whether or not the anomaly is 0.1 or -0.3. However the biggest ”problem” would be for the people promoting CAGW in either case.
The Heat Is On
The strangest thing upon us yet
A sight to make the Skeptics stare
The Warmists all are in a sweat
They feel the heat that isn’t there
It wasn’t there the other day
It seems today the same is true
Tomorrow if it stays away
The Warmists will be barbecue
Throw Chicken Little on the grill
And funding pork that tainted meat
The Warmists broil despite the chill
Their goose is cooked by absent heat
R.Brown says
Read Grant Perry’s book, look at the data therein. I’m just sayin’… kind of difficult to argue with direct spectroscopy and the integration of a power spectrum. But believe what you like.
Henry says
I think a clever man like you would have figured that there is no balance sheet in there, with the right dimensions. In fact the last posts from you prove to me that you do not understand how a gas behaves in the atmosphere and because of this you will also never understand exactly WHY we are cooling.(there are some clues …)
Gheewish, Could I be a genius to be that far ahead of all of you here….?
Werner Brozek says
so growing food should be better,
Henry says
Thanks. You say: there was no disaster then so there will not be a disaster when we drop 0.3K from 2012 – 2020. In a peculiar way, you are right about growing (more) food in a cooling period because I do find that we do get more precipitation in a cooling period (such as the one we are in)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/#comment-192
So all we are looking at is a bit of inconvenience with a few extra storms and more wind here and there and extra snow to remove and extra rain, etc. but that is about it. It should not affect the crops. If anything, crops should be getting bigger. Interesting.
And, like you said, an INCONVENIENT truth for quite a lot of people.
Gheewish, Could I be a genius to be that far ahead of all of you here….?
Sure, that must be it. Glad you thought of it.
rgb
Am I the only one starting to see the climatologists understanding of science similar to that of scientologists?