The North Pole:- we hate to say we told you so, but we told you so

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>While still warming, the RATE of warming has decreased in recent years
>even WITH the increased CO2.

The 11-year solar cycle is currently at a minimum. It peaked in 2000 and has been unusually low for 8 years now. That results in about 1.2 watts/sq m less insolation. Since greenhouse gas forcing (mainly CO2 and CH4) is between 1.6 and 2.4 watts/sq m, warming has slowed a bit.

That's just one factor, of course. This year should be cooler overall because of a strong La Nina cycle.

That seems like prima facie proof that CO2 is *not* the prime driver, then, does it not?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

I keep wondering why so many supposed free market Capitalists here in Speakers corner bemoan those who are making money

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

You can all look foolish together, I dont care

And how many 500 year or 1000 year floods has Iowa had in the last 20 years that GW has been accelerating in???

It really doesn't help convince the 'deniers' when you use the same sort of anecdotes = evidence mistakes that they do.

Floods happen when man develops on floodplanes. It is mostly irrelevant to the matter of GW, and massive floods date back for 1000s of years.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You can all look foolish together, I dont care

And how many 500 year or 1000 year floods has Iowa had in the last 20 years that GW has been accelerating in???

It really doesn't help convince the 'deniers' when you use the same sort of anecdotes = evidence mistakes that they do.

Floods happen when man develops on floodplanes. It is mostly irrelevant to the matter of GW, and massive floods date back for 1000s of years.

Also seen in cycles?

Temps
CO2 levels
Ice cover


and on and on

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[stitch 0]

Quote

Quote

You can all look foolish together, I dont care

And how many 500 year or 1000 year floods has Iowa had in the last 20 years that GW has been accelerating in???

Two. 1993 and 2008.

I've been in Iowa twice in the last 2 weeks and not once have my feet gotten wet.

"No cookies for you"- GFD
"I don't think I like the sound of that" ~ MB65
Don't be a "Racer Hater"

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I keep wondering why so many supposed free market Capitalists here in Speakers corner bemoan those who are making money

I do NOT bemoan it. In factN I have called Gore brilliant for creating demand for his product. He's like L Ron Hubbard - people pay a fortune for his teachings, defend him, and he laughs all the way to the bank.

But for a market to be "free" it must be honest. That's why when statements like he gives all profits to some place sounds good, its like a coal mine advertising its good heart at spending 10 million last year reclaiming the land that was a strip mine.

Tell the WHOLE truth and it is not NEARLY so nice.

But Gore has gotten away with it. Good for him!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TheAnvil 0]

There was an interesting article in Foreign Affairs a bit ago on the economic impact of a Northwest Passage actually opening up to shipping. Pretty interesting article - I hadn't thought about it until I read it.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[airdvr 200]

Quote

4) Climate scientists are not a close-knit “social” group that engages in group think. Hundreds of scientists work in this field and we are a competitive bunch. We compete for scarce research dollars, academic recognition, and professional standing. Every scientific publication that my colleague or I have published has been subject to rigorous and independent peer review. Peer review in my field is anonymous. Authors play no role in selecting peer reviewers. And it is quite possible --- indeed likely --- that a journal will select someone who has expressed skepticism in one’s work as a peer reviewer.

Hmmm.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

4) Climate scientists are not a close-knit “social” group that engages in group think. Hundreds of scientists work in this field and we are a competitive bunch. We compete for scarce research dollars, academic recognition, and professional standing. Every scientific publication that my colleague or I have published has been subject to rigorous and independent peer review. Peer review in my field is anonymous. Authors play no role in selecting peer reviewers. And it is quite possible --- indeed likely --- that a journal will select someone who has expressed skepticism in one’s work as a peer reviewer.

Hmmm.

He's correct. Do you have a point?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyChimp 0]

I wonder if the tempatures near the equator are rising as well. I mean if the equator takes the blunt of the sun's rays, wouldn't the tempatures in this region be higher than lets say 10 years ago?? If they are then it makes sense to me regarding the global warming because the whole planet should be retaining more heat as a whole.... no?

However, if the equator is pretty close to what it was 10 years ago but all of a sudden the North Pole becomes a slush puppy, I would say that the other theory presents more logic.

Before you repond, keep in mind I am not a scientist so pretend I'm just one of those "common folk" you are trying to over, in support for the matter.

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Underwater volcanoes make much more sense than your GW voodoo talk. Ice melts, ice freezes. That happens when the climate changes naturally. But keep preaching your GW gospel of fear. We will see 50-100 years down the road that things will be no different climate wise.

Ummm newly DISCOVERED vulcanism doesn't mean the vulcanism itself is new.

Serious FLAW in your logic there. Seems a bit like desperation.

And in fact, it's the other way around: The Vulcans discovered us first, since they had already developed warp drive. I mean, everybody knows that.

I swear, some people make themselves look foolish.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

keep in mind I am not a scientist

No!!

[airdvr 200]

Quote

Quote

Quote

4) Climate scientists are not a close-knit “social” group that engages in group think. Hundreds of scientists work in this field and we are a competitive bunch. We compete for scarce research dollars, academic recognition, and professional standing. Every scientific publication that my colleague or I have published has been subject to rigorous and independent peer review. Peer review in my field is anonymous. Authors play no role in selecting peer reviewers. And it is quite possible --- indeed likely --- that a journal will select someone who has expressed skepticism in one’s work as a peer reviewer.

Hmmm.

He's correct. Do you have a point?

Absolutely. Grants are rarely given to research a non-problem.

I don't know the answer here John. I know the possibilities only. There's alot of money that will be tossed around off this GW issue. I'm sure it's possible to create a perceived problem in an effort to prompt government research and the $$ that go with it. I don't believe it's not at least a motivator.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

There's alot of money that will be tossed around off this GW issue. I'm sure it's possible to create a perceived problem in an effort to prompt government research and the $$ that go with it. I don't believe it's not at least a motivator.

Do you have any specific numbers in mind? E.g., how much RDT&E money has been invested in climatology/climate research, compared to say missile defense?

How much do you know about trends in funding for biodefense post-fall 2001 compared to public health? Do you have any idea how many 'manhours' have been lost during OIF/OEF due to diarrheal diseases and how much funding has been invested in developing pretreatments and therapeutics to those causitive agents?

If your scenario regarding creation & implementation of research funding programs is correct, one should expect billions and billions being put toward alternative energy research and technology to end dependence on oil. Why hasn't there been?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[SkyChimp 0]

Quote

Quote

keep in mind I am not a scientist

No!!

Get with me on this when you can Kallend, I need to help Andy pick up his blocks and put the fire truck away.

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[airdvr 200]

Quote

Quote

There's alot of money that will be tossed around off this GW issue. I'm sure it's possible to create a perceived problem in an effort to prompt government research and the $$ that go with it. I don't believe it's not at least a motivator.

Do you have any specific numbers in mind? E.g., how much RDT&E money has been invested in climatology/climate research, compared to say missile defense?

How much do you know about trends in funding for biodefense post-fall 2001 compared to public health? Do you have any idea how many 'manhours' have been lost during OIF/OEF due to diarrheal diseases and how much funding has been invested in developing pretreatments and therapeutics to those causitive agents?

If your scenario regarding creation & implementation of research funding programs is correct, one should expect billions and billions being put toward alternative energy research and technology to end dependence on oil. Why hasn't there been?

VR/Marg

No I don't know. I don't need to compare X vs. Y. Why are the numbers compared to anything relevant? I know there is and will be lots of money changing hands over GW research, and not just from the gov't.

Are you saying it's not possible to exagerate the problem with the goal of getting research funding?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

4) Climate scientists are not a close-knit “social” group that engages in group think. Hundreds of scientists work in this field and we are a competitive bunch. We compete for scarce research dollars, academic recognition, and professional standing. Every scientific publication that my colleague or I have published has been subject to rigorous and independent peer review. Peer review in my field is anonymous. Authors play no role in selecting peer reviewers. And it is quite possible --- indeed likely --- that a journal will select someone who has expressed skepticism in one’s work as a peer reviewer.

Hmmm.

He's correct. Do you have a point?

Absolutely. Grants are rarely given to research a non-problem.

I don't know the answer here John. I know the possibilities only. There's alot of money that will be tossed around off this GW issue. I'm sure it's possible to create a perceived problem in an effort to prompt government research and the $$ that go with it. I don't believe it's not at least a motivator.

How does "peer review" address the issue of "causation?" See, my problem is inherent advocacy.

Look - my career involves it. The other side gets an expert to say that X caused 4 - it's the only thing that causes it. I get an expert to say that X cannot cause 4 - 4 can only be caused by G or M. So the other side gets a Nobel Prize winner to replace its expert. I counter by getting one of my own.

And then it's a matter of whether the other side can generate enough hoopla to convince the jury.

We've seen it before. Look at silicone breast implants. Recently, it's been determined that lawyers brought it about, and generated substantial fears among a couple million women and their families about the impending connective tissue autoimmune disorers that their implants caused or will cause. FDA Chairman Kessler even banned silicone breast implants.

Are these scientific "conclusions" subject to peer review? Yes. But how does one review subjectivity? It was hot outside in Fresno yesterday. As compared to Wellington New Zealand, yes it was. As compared to a sheet metal fabrication plant it was not.

Even historians have huge debates. "Correllation" versus "causation." Reagan's speech brought own the Berlin Wall? No. That's correllation. No, that's causation.

Even peer review has its limitations. And my career has mae me a profound skeptic of anything coming out of the mouths of anybody. And I would expect anyone to be skeptical of me, as well.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So, a climatologist knows more about statistics than a statistician...thank for proving the point.

…

The short story is that the GW advocates have hitched their wagon to Mann's faulty (in amplitude) 'hockey stick' and proof of CO2 forced warming, and so they have to defend it.

Way to ignore the fact that different scientists, using different data sources and different statistical methods, reached the same conclusions as Mann.

Climatologists haven't "hitched their wagon" to Mann's study. They have found that his results are reproducible and repeatable. Claims that the conclusion is incorrect have been heard, examine, and disregarded on their own (lack of) merit.

But go ahead and cling to your denial.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I see Mann's work being touted as the prime evidence of CO2 forced GW - in that sense, yes, it's held as 'gospel'.

That would be an incorrect observation. He may be given credit for reaching the conclusion first, but that's different from being the prime evidence.

Quote

I still find it telling that Mann doesn't release his full data - that and the 'modified' PCs from the original work leads me to believe that he tweaked the data to fit the theory and not the reverse. First impressions and all that.

He has made his full data set available to other researchers. Considering that the results have been reproduced in numerous ways, it is unlikely that any of the data were "tweaked."

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

There's alot of money that will be tossed around off this GW issue. I'm sure it's possible to create a perceived problem in an effort to prompt government research and the $$ that go with it. I don't believe it's not at least a motivator.

Quote

No I don't know. I don't need to compare X vs. Y. Why are the numbers compared to anything relevant? I know there is and will be lots of money changing hands over GW research, and not just from the gov't.

Are you saying it's not possible to exagerate the problem with the goal of getting research funding?

The point is that the initial argument is a distracter and problematic, as demonstrated by (1) examples of much more well-funded programs with less well-justified technical or strategic motivations, and (2) counter-examples of real problems that aren’t well-funded.

When one makes an assertion that amounts of money are being invested, it’s reasonable to expect that the claimant could situate that funding relative to other funding programs.

A research group with which I was affiliated a number of years ago got funding from DARPA nominally under a program to investigate cold fusion via sonoluminescence (changing sound into light). There was a lot of money “tossed around.” The PI used the funding partially to disprove some of assertions about ‘desktop nuclear fusion’ and partially to fund scientifically-sound research. Programs funding Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) or Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions (CANR), i.e., cold fusion research, still exist.


~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~

Quote

How does "peer review" address the issue of "causation?"

Causation of what? (Yours is a good & fair question, I’m just not sure to determination of which causal mechanism it’s directed.)

“Causation” of the program that distributes funding? That’s agency dependent and varies highly. For example, the DoD has a complex process involving 5-year budget planning cycles (POM); 1-year budget processes (FYDP) for the PBR; requirements processes through the Joint Chiefs of Staff Office (J8), which is supposed to be driven by the combatant commanders; and requirements driven by suggestions of Congress (in that special way Congress suggests things).

Every US federal RDTE funding programs requires some form of peer review as part of the granting or contracting process. Depending on the program & agency, there may be monthly, quarterly, or yearly reviews by the Program Manager (who should be competent …) &/or an outside review panel.

Claims of causal mechanisms scientifically? In peer review of publications both before publication and by the larger community after publication, conclusions that suggest/assert a causal mechanism is a main object of review, i.e., does that data and the methods support the conclusion (or correlation if that’s the object of the paper, e.g., epidemiology)? If the data and methods are inadequate it goes back to the authors. That’s primary literature.

Critics of a proposed causal mechanism will frequently go back to the data or go back to the laboratory (really, send their grad students and post docs in the lab) to try to disprove the conclusion(s), e.g., in response to Telayarken’s (ORNL-then, now-Purdue) publication on sonoluminesce-driven cold fusion a few years ago, a few other leaders in the field immediately (almost literally) initated research to counter the causal claims ( http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/311/5767/1532.pdf).

The silicone breast implants case is a great example where a causation mechanism was never clearly proven but where multiple small n correlations and non-data driven conclusions were thrust into the courts (including the court of public opinion, because everyone had heard in secondary, tertiary accounts …). In the late 1990s, I shared access to a 750 MHz NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance instrument, not MRI) that was being used to probe for 29^Si as part of “bleeding rates.” Another example is the perpetuated vaccine-autism link – neither correlation nor a causal mechanism has ever been demonstrated, but there are a lot of folks who would advocate US policy changed to reflect their fears … or those who oppose the HPV vaccine – those health science policy decisions are impacted by many non-scientific, non-causal mechanism factors.

What society or the government chooses to do in response to the science is science policy and eventually impacts general policy … and causation mechanisms there are highly non-scientific. And I would not advocate for policy to be purely a technocratic endeavor. That’s where ethics, economics, and priorities should be considered. Many of the priorities are highly non-scientific. Altho’ it is a strong argument in favor of having advisory bodies such as the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to inform policymakers on the confidence (error bars, which scientists love but policy makers and the public find more problematic) of science (or lack thereof) underlying the policy choices they are making. I concur with the skepticism ... one of the motivators (for me at least) to go back to the primary data.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Plus - show me a film that makes a "net profit.". Because the Gross Profit is lessened by the cost of transcontinental flights on a Gulfstream. They cost a pretty penny and eat into profit margin. And less taxes paid - dig it?

And when authors take, oh, 20 percent of the proceeds. Those aren't profits. Those are "salary."

Sorry, I should have said assets, not profits. In a different post I linked to the interview.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Look - my career involves it. The other side gets an expert to say that X caused 4 - it's the only thing that causes it. I get an expert to say that X cannot cause 4 - 4 can only be caused by G or M. So the other side gets a Nobel Prize winner to replace its expert. I counter by getting one of my own.

And then it's a matter of whether the other side can generate enough hoopla to convince the jury.

Science is about reaching logical conclusions based upon evidence. Law is about persuading jurors to believe their clients' claims (or not believe the opponents' claims). Two different goals with two different methodologies.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Science is about reaching logical conclusions based upon evidence. Law is about persuading jurors to believe their clients' claims (or not believe the opponents' claims).

Law is about reaching conclusions based upon the evidence, as well. The tools of my profession are words. We take facts and apply them to a set of principles to reach conclusions.

Your proposition that "law is about persuading jurors" is but a small part of it. It's like saying golf is about how well you can hit your 4 iron. It's not the point.

So "law" is about getting that facts. Jurors decide "fact" when there are different sides to the story. Once the "facts" are determined, the law tells you what to do with that. Here's an example of legal thinking:

"Issue: My sidewalk is covered in ice. Why?
Rule: Water freezes at around 32 degrees.
Analysis: I know as a fact that the temperature last night dropped to 27 degrees, with 7 hours under 32 degrees. I also know that my sprinklers were schedule to be turned on at 2:00 a.m., when the temperature was 29 degrees. While I did not see it, evience suggests that the sprinklers operated uring that time ue to substantial evidence of water. The sprinklers released water.
Conclusion: Since water freezes below 32 degrees, as a matter of law, the sprinklers released water, which froze in the cold weather."

That, sir, is the essence of law. We had evidence, rules and inferences that allowed a conclusion to be reached.

Science uses laws. And data. And inferences.

But science, like law, is also predicated upon a positional analysis. A scientist will take positions on things.

Check out the Bohr-Einstein debates. Both had plenty of scientific evience on their sides. But competing inferences. Einstein wasn't buying what Copenhagen school of thought was propounding. Bohr WAS buying it. And both were personally interested in the outcome! They were "positional" in their debates.

So we saw two of the pre-eminent scientists of all time persuaing other scientists to believe their claims.

Isn't that what ALL science is? Isnt' that why it is published? So others can believe it and test it?

Was Einstein merely a poo poo to Bohr? A "denier?" Was Bohr the "denier?"

And yet, one side of the debate over climate is shut out, right? It's not real science? The inferences ar eillegitimate? Their evidence is not to be trusted.

Lawyers could learn a lot from the climate debate.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Underwater volcanoes make much more sense than your GW voodoo talk. Ice melts, ice freezes. That happens when the climate changes naturally. But keep preaching your GW gospel of fear. We will see 50-100 years down the road that things will be no different climate wise.

Ummm newly DISCOVERED vulcanism doesn't mean the vulcanism itself is new.

Serious FLAW in your logic there. Seems a bit like desperation.

Newly discovered and recent climate change also does not suggest that climate change is new. We now know that speed of winds at 30,000 feet - we can get that information quite easily. And it was all but impossible a century ago.

We can get the water temperature at the bottom of the Marianas trench - which we really couldn't do previously.

We can get real time data and extensive records of the temperatures in all parts of the globe and have nearly instantaneous access to it, which we couldn't do just decades ago.

So when we are flooded with information about climate change, well, if we had no data 10, 20 or even 100 years ago, then what can we say? "We've got new information that the global temperature has risen 1 degree Celsius in the last four years!"

Well, my son has quadrupled in weight in under four years. At this pace, in another 4 years, he'll be 120. And then 220 by the time he's 12. And 880 by the time he's 16. And he'll weigh 3,520 pounds by the time he's 20.

Of course he won't. It's like saying, "The fastest growing group of HIV sufferers is heterosexual men." Yeah. An increase of 20 cases to 100 cases in the span of a year is a "larger rate of increase" than 20k to 40k of another group.

"The temperature has increased as a quicker pace than in the last 1,000.00 years. But maybe not in the last 2,000 years. It doesn't do any good than to compare this to the medieval climate optimum of about 1,000 years ago. We sure as hell don't want to point out that 1650 -1850 is now known as "the Little Ice Age."

Whenever I see stats about "climate change" it is VERY FREQUENTLY compared to 1850 - roughly the start of industrialization.

Well, no shit that we're warmer now than we were in an "Ice Age."

Here's my inference. And prove me wrong:

"We have spent the last 150 years coming out of an Ice Age. The temperatures are expected to edge higher over the next century or so. They may climb higher, or this may be a hiccup before another Ice Age."

Or, here's another inference:

"We were in an Ice Age in 1850. Industrialization, however, increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Data suggests that human activity has an extensive warming impact on the climate, leading to the conclusion that in the absence of human activity, we could still be mired today in an ice age, with its resulting famine and pestilence."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

And yet, one side of the debate over climate is shut out, right? It's not real science? The inferences ar eillegitimate? Their evidence is not to be trusted.

Litigator - it seems you are arguing a case.
No, “one side” is not shut out.

As has been demonstrated previous before, repeatedly, in this forum, that assertion does not hold up to scrutiny, e.g., http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3176591;search_string=%5Bmnealtx%5D;#3176591. Even within this thread, the purported article on volcanism under the Arctic was published in Nature ... still not validated how that challenges the original post. (Has any body ever been to Iceland or Greenland? Lots of evidence of volcanism that makes for beautiful landscapes and hot springs.)

So while that rhetorical claim may be useful in a court of law, court of public opinion, the blog-o-sphere, or Congressional hearings called by Sen Inohofe, it does not withstand a cursory analysis and does not reflect the science reality.

Quite the contrary, challenging & (more frequently) puzzlingly science is published. If it’s new data, the data goes back into the models for re-calculation. If it’s a new method, it’s compared to known data (from historical record); if it can’t accurately describe the past, it’s discarded (that’s checking the model).

If some group found new data, a better analysis method, or demonstrated a revolutionary conclusion displacing the current body of literature that held up to rigorous scrutiny, it would be an almost automatic Science paper. This has happened. Great historical example is displacement of JJ Thompson’s plum pudding model of the atomic nucleus; one gold-foil experiment by Ernest Rutherford and that idea was discarded.

As was discussed previously, the M&M paper was problematic from the start and the RUMINT version of their interaction with the Nature editors does not reflect even what M&M describe on their own site from their own view, much less what Mann or other third-part observers relate.

As far as publishing debates by leading scientists. Yes, that does happen: here’s a favorite of mine between Nobel Laureate Rick Smalley (Rice Univ) and Eric Drexler on nanoscale molecular assembly (NB: *not* replicators, a la Crichton’s Prey).
Debates do occur in the letters pages of journals: the great silylium ion debate in the pages (letters and technical articles) of Science, between George Olah (USC, Nobel Prize 1995) & Chris Reed (UC Riverside, formerly USC) or Dick Ebright's (Rutgers) & friends criticisms of biodefense funding by NIH-NIAID (over fundamental inquiries into pathogenesis and infectious disease) to which NIH Director Elias Zerhouni and NIAID director Tony Fauci replied. In science, debate happens all the time. Historically, that also relates to why a number of journals include “Letters” in their title, i.e., Physical Review Letters.

Even before publication, peer-review occurs when data and conclusions are presented at seminars and conferences. Scientists are very antagonistic; it's the culture. You are expected to be able to defend your assertions. It makes Speakers Corner appear diffident and timorous by comparison.

The reason you see 1850 data mentioned frequently is because that's when folks in London and Washington started directly recording temperature. One also sees '1958' alot, as that's when Keeling began recordin CO^2 on Mauna Loa. In reviewing the literature, one also find data from tree rings, from coral (CaCO3), from ocean sediment (Mo isotopes and O isotope ratios), from ice cores (isotope ratios), etc. that extend as far back as millions of years (depends on the method).

In the science, no “side” is shut out. Most of what we discuss here isn’t science … it’s science policy and implications of policy on personal economics.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying