You mean like trying to scare people by saying global warming is going to destroy the earth in ten years?

Rolling Stone: “Terrorism is a conspriacy therory. There is no threat.” (Paraphrasing)

Thank you. Now I can ignore the world and sleep at night.

Rolling Stone: “Oh, P.S. Global Warming will kill us all.” (Paraphrasing)

Hypocrisy, nice.

The difference with “Global Warming” warnings(which is fact) and “The End of the World” warnings is that the administration is going about creating “Wars” that will fulfill their scare tactics.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and Rove are not satisfied with the money they and their corporations have raked in with the “War on Iraq”(Wink, wink) and they are intent on making some more off Iran if people can be dumbed-down again into believing their phony hype….

Iran has become Iraq’s evil twin in the Cheney slobbering all over himself to enrich his “corps” into more chaos and death and igniting the world against us…

Bush and his Bumblers Brigade should seek exile in Siberia and leave our country alone…

Empty promises, using fear and aiming it at those who lack any political intellect, and, seeking to make more money for the already fat rich business heads, is obscene and disgusting-like looking at Bush/Cheney/Rove’s faces or is it one person with three ugly heads(?)

But, the word is in to the Bush oil companies to bring prices down ’til after the November elections-funny how the scare tactic of “not enough oil” has just disappeared overnight but wait ’til the GOP tries to ignite another war with Iran(Oil, that is)…..

We know the gluttinous Republican drill………………
Boooo ooooo

Let Them Eat Cake – global warming is fact, like the next ice age was a fact in the 1970’s. What a joke. Bush and Chenney have made nothing off this war or the oil prices, the President and Vice President have to put all their money in a blind trust when they take office, that is a fact. And anyone with a brain, which excludes most liberals, only has to listen to what comes out of the mouth of the madman in Iran to know who is causing problems there.

This is something that many people have seen coming for a long time.

Religion has always been the biggest threat to humanity, and it will continue to be so.

It’s sad that Humanity can come so far in so many respects, but still cling to ancient fairy tales. It’s evern worse that the people who believe in these fairy tales are the ones who wield all of the power and hold the fate of the world in their hands. Wait…that’s not sad, it’s scary.

Oh, and Glenn Beck is an idiot.

Someone tell that Pig person that Bush and co. have made plenty off the war through their ties with Halliburton and other corps. that are the primary manufactuers of the tanks, missiles, weapons etc. that are used to kill thousands of innocent people in Iraq. Also, global warming is a fact like the holocaust was a fact. Every scientist with a viable degree and reputation agrees on this one. But I suppose that would be hard for a right wing Christian nutbag to follow. After all, you morons believe God calls you on the phone every night and appoints people like Bush , whose IQ is probably negative 5, to be his emmissary on earth. Jesus people, if you believe that then 1)we’re in a lot of trouble (oh, wait…we ARE in a lot of trouble!) and 2)you don’t have a very high opinion of the man upstairs. You fucktart.

people, people…can’t we all just get along?……………apparentl y not, so fuck it, I’m booking a flight to siberia for myself–it’s a golden age for survivalists. Have fun with the radiation/anthrax/avian flu/terrorist/jihad/obesity/me th epedemic/political extermist/ultra nationalist/religious fundamentalist/uber partisan/ global warming/ corporately controlled cocktail of a world you’ve all brewed for yourself

What does global warming have to do with this article?

C Co, this article is about certain politicians and commentators using End Times rhetoric to garner support for Israel and war with Iran. Nowhere does the author say that terrorism is a conspiracy theory. The only conspiracy he is talking about is the use of this End Times hocus pocus to drive conservative Christians to support Bush’s Middle East policies.

I repeat: he is NOT saying terrorism doesn’t exist. He is saying the people with ties to the White House are using Biblical prophecy to drive policy. Can you not see the difference? It’s a pretty big difference.

Looks like most of you haven’t yet “Googled” “The Power of Nightmares” or even watched “Orwell Rolls in his Grave!” After watching both these documentaries all of you will re-clarify your positions.

No, I’m not that smart and some of you have already seen them. What we all must do is get as informed as we can, and put what we think we already know in a new light.

Global Warming is not coming to get us nearly as much as our very own homegrown “Intellectual Terrorism” being cast about by our MSM and the PR shills for the NeoCons, TheoCons, and EvangiCons.

Remember, too, that the Radical Right will not go away on their own; they must be helped by a realistic enlightenment we can all contribute to. We must first become enlightened ourselves.

Ignorant People, Beware! Let’s all try to get more un-Ignorant!

Capitalist This – First off, I am not a christian, so you can save that argument. Secondly, the President has not made anything, and if he has he would not know it, that is what a blind trust is for, you idiot.

“Blind Trust: A trust in which the executors have full discretion over the assets, and the trust beneficiaries have no knowledge of the holdings of the trust.”

“Every scientist with a viable degree and reputation agrees on this one.”

All scientist do not agree, and even if they did, that does not make it a fact. The left has used psuedo science for many years. These scientist give new meaning to the term “politcal science”. Global Warming is the left’s religion, and Algore aka Chicken Little is the messiah. Too bad he does not even believe his own bullshit. Funny how the left constantly condems religious people for believing, but are always looking for some cause to “believe in” so they can save the world.

Beelay – It is sad that liberals believe in fairy tales like global warming, and socialism, but hey what can you do?

Smog – C Co’s point was that the left constantly accuses the right of scare tactics to get votes, yet do the very same thing themselves with global warming. As for your statement ….”He is saying the people with ties to the White House are using Biblical prophecy to drive policy…” Biblical prophecy is not driving the agenda in the White House, nor does he provide any proof of such. This is nothing but his lame ass theory. He quotes an article that “suggests” one of these writers was called to the White House by “an unnamed aide”. Nothing but liberal speculation, and hype. Talk about trying to scare your base, that is all this article is, and attempt to scare the left wing kooks. That should not be hard to do.

I think you missed something when you named yourself “Capitalist Pig!” You should display a little more far-Right truthiness, i.e., “Ignorant Capitalist Pig.”

BrickSykes – You are the one who should try a truthful name, may I suggest…Another whiny-ass liberal loser…I’m a useless socialist pawn….I am mindless so I repeat liberal talking points…Take your pick loser.

CP–Is this, like, your only social outlet? Lovey, you need to get laid more. Like the liberals do.

Mr. Taibbi–Thanks so much for writing this article and debunking a popular myth–that the Left Behind series and the Da Vinci Code are actually any good! I reviewed them both for an article and those were a few of the most maddeningly boring hours of my life! If this is what passes for literature in the GOP–hell, in America the end is really fucking nigh! Go ahead, write a biased, bigoted, white supremacy type superthriller about Jesus and Satan coming down, up,side to side to kick our collective ass but dear God–at least be INTERESTING when you do it! If these are the prototypes this is going to be one boring apocalypse.

Seriously though, thanks for your collumn. Your writing is superb, whether you agree with the view or not. I look forward to reading more.

Pig – once again you have taken a completely unrelated thread and filled it with your unscientific climate change theories. Still, I’m not going to let you get away with this nonsense yet again.

No, all scientists do not agree about climate change. However, there is an overwhelming consensus, demonstrated by the statements made by international scientific bodies, that climate change is a real phenomena. Now, you in your wisdom are welcome to disagree with them, but to suggest that this shows that scientific institutions are part of some kind of worldwide ‘liberal’ conspiracy puts you firmly in the realm of the tinfoil hat wearers. Since scientific consensus is that climate change will cause severe disruption in the years to come, I for one wish to investigate ways and means to reduce it.

It is stupid to suggest that RS (amongst others) is guilty of hypocrisy for attacking the right for using scare tactics, while at the same time warning people about climate change. This is not hypocrisy, simply because it is truthfully believed that climate change is a danger. A dictionary may prove helpful to you if you disagree.

And so, back to the article…

It is well known that many members of the US administration are evangelical Christians. If as the article suggests, there is a suspicion that Biblical prophecy is driving policy, then I want this to be investigated, because I find the idea horrific. Now, I would be comforted by your assertion that Biblical prophecy is not affecting White House policy, if I thought that you had the tiniest bit of evidence to back this up. Now, I am aware that I don’t know everything, and have found that the best method to combat this is to read articles and books in order to think new thoughts, learn about the world, develop new ideas, etc. I strongly suspect that if you dismiss everything that doesn’t agree with your preconceived notions as some kind of pseudo-science, religion or conspiracy, then your opportunities for future learning will be severely limited.

Finally – yes BrickSykes, I have watched “The Power of Nightmares”, and thought it was really good (note to Pig: I ‘learnt’ from it). It contrasted the rise of Islamic fundamentalism with the rise of the Neocons. Note that it did NOT conclude that “Terrorism is a conspiracy theory. There is no threat”, but rather that the true goal of Al Qaeda et al is to establish fundamentalist Islamic governments in the Arab states, and that the attacks on the West were mostly a means to achieve this aim. Whether you agree with the program or not, it is well worth watching, because it is well researched, intelligent, honest and thought provoking.

Pig –

“Actually I simply pointed out that the left resorts to the same scare tactics that they accuse the right of doing”
And as I have already pointed out, this comparison could only make sense if you thought that the left didn’t actually believe that global warming was a threat. They, or at least I, do, and so I am not employing a “scare tactic” at all.

“Climate change … is caused by nature”
“Scientists think they can predict the weather”
I repeat, there is a scientific consensus that humanity’s actions are having a detrimental effect on the climate. This consensus is based on research using the scientific method: it is not part of some bizarre international conspiracy, much less a religion. And I am indeed aware that the earth’s climate has changed naturally over time. Do you know what? The scientists are aware of this too!

Also, don’t try to tell me what I do and do not believe. Apart from this being rude, you can’t possibly know what I think, I’ve got my tinfoil hat on as I type!

“The accuser is the one who has to provide proof”
Well, this may be true in court, but I think that you will find journalism to be a little different. Although as it happens, some proof actually is offered in the article, in the form of personal testimonials. The article highlighted a concern held by many, namely that the White House is run by people who believe in an imminent Armageddon. Personally, I would push for a direct statement from all self-confessed fundamentalists in government that they will not push for policies designed to facilitate the onset of Armageddon.

I can see why a non-Christian Republican like yourself might get upset at the suggestion that your administration was basing its actions on (frankly whacko) end-times predictions. But I would have more respect for you if I knew you were fighting the fundamentalist Christian influences in your party rather than engaging in pointless science denial.

Finally, please be careful with your picture links. At first I thought you were offering proof to Paris is a Robot that you do indeed get laid…

Oh, and by the way CP, thanks for letting me have a look at your sources. I can see why you are so dismissive of the opinions of others now.
Here I am, a poor chicken little, basing my opinions on the flimsy evidence provided by the world scientific community, with their foolish reliance on scientific enquiry, peer review, objective analysis of the facts etc. You, mighty ‘non-preconceptual scientist’ that you are, have the full weight of junkscience.com behind you, a mighty organisation willing to publish any worthy scientific theories (that happen to mirror the biases of the site). All praise the internet: no longer does anyone need to waste 30 years learning about meteorology to rise to the top of the profession, now all it takes is a website and a catchphrase.

Alien Billie – Actually that was just a cartoon to show the stupidity of preconcenputal science. I get my facts and opinions from many sources, unlike the left. I am not so ignorant to think that because some is a scientist that they do not have a political agenda, in fact most are very liberal. But they are scientist, so they are objective..yeah right. I base my opinion on several facts.

Number one – these same scientist predicted a second ice age in the 1970’s, it would occur by the late 1980’s if we did not change. Did not happen, so they came up with global warming.

Number two – Let’s try common sense. Algore gave a speech in New York on global warming, it happened to be the coldest day in recorded history of NYC. So they GW crowd now says record cold is caused by global warming, so is record heat, record dry, or record rain. If that does not sound like a scam to you, then you are an idiot. The earth is getting hotter and that is causing it to get colder..sounds real scientific to me.

Number Three – The solution to these eviromental problems always involves raising taxes, damaging the U.S. economy, and redistribution of wealth. The liberal solution to all problems it seems.

Number Four – Algore aka Chicken Little does not practice what he preaches. When the gw messiah does not by into it, why should I? Al lives in a 10,000 sq ft. house, owns a 6,000 sq ft. house, both cool and heated by traditional methods, not very green. Owns oil company stock, one with a shoddy enviromental record. Leases land to a Zinc mininig co., with a shoddy enviromental record. Flies around in a lear jet, not green. I could go on, but why?

But even without the whole GW aka Global Socialism thing, the fact is still that this article is based on heresay, and speculation. And the left uses other scare tactics. Such as republicans are going to starve old people, make blacks go back to segregation, even though more republicans voted for the 1964 Voting Rights Act than democrats.

Oh and please save the “Bush Apologist” shit, all you. I know that is the new liberal talking point, but I am not apologizing for anything. If you voted for Gore or Kerry you need to apologize.

OK I’m strapped in, tinfoil hat is on, let’s descend to planet Piggie and see what strange new theories we find…

“I get my facts and opinions from many sources, unlike the left.”
A bold assertion. I challenge you to provide any shred of evidence whatsoever that you are more widely read than an average leftist.

You suggest that scientists are fallible, and have political opinions. So far so good. However, you offer no evidence whatsoever that the worldwide scientific establishment is somehow part of a leftist conspiracy. Well OK you do, it’s just that what you call evidence, sensible people call horseshit, as we will see:

“Scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970’s”
Did they? I missed that news report. However, what you would appear to have here is an example of science at work, i.e. a theory was proposed, and then shown to be wrong. Are you then proposing that all future scientific theories must be discounted because of this? Oh no, in fact you seem to be suggesting that scientists have now come up with climate change to save face! OK, I think it’s time I gave you the tinfoil hat back.

“Let’s try common sense”
Ah, the perennial call of those with no evidence to back them up. You are essentially saying ‘if it’s global warming then how come it was cold yesterday’. In all honesty, I don’t believe that you are so foolish as to believe what you are writing here. Please don’t try to trick me with idiotic ‘appeals to reason’.

“The solution to these enviromental problems always involves raising taxes…”
And what of it? If it’s true, then it’s true, whether expensive or no. It seems reasonable to suppose that you simply don’t want it to be true, in case it costs you money.

“Al Gore does not practice what he preaches”
Again, whether true or not, this has nothing to do with whether climate change is a threat to us or not.

“I could go on, but why?”
You know, many readers of this blog have wondered the same…

Finally, just to show that I can occasionally stay on topic, personally I am concerned that fundamentalist Christians in government could enact a secret strategy designed at bringing on end times, or rapture, or Armageddon, or whatever. Do you not think this could happen?

“We might have to face the fact that American politics has departed the world of the rational and has entered the realm of a cultist dynamic.”

DUH!!!

Billie -

“And what of it? If it’s true, then it’s true, whether expensive or no. It seems reasonable to suppose that you simply don’t want it to be true, in case it costs you money.”

One more thing…wasn’t it you that debated me once about how Wal-Mart did not pay enough, and did not provide benefits to their employess?

The Kyoto Protocol would cost the U.S. between 2.4 and 3.1 million jobs. So Wal-Mart is evil because they don’t pay enough, but if 2.4-3.1 Million lose their jobs, so what? Guess the goverment will take care of them, right?

Okay Smog.

“suspiciously-timed terror warnings”
“scaring voters”

Whenever the Republicans try to speak frankly about terrorism Tim/Liberals automatically go into “they said that to keep you scared and get you votes” mode. Hello!, everything that comes out of the liberal politicians’ mouths is angry rhetotic about Bush/conservatives that they hope will persuade you to vote for them.
My comment about global warming was simply to point out the hypocrisy of liberals in calling what Bush has to say about terrorism “scare tactics”, meanwhile you have Al Gore saying the world is going to end because the planet has heated up a degree or two the last hundred years. Not that I’m saying that Global Warming doesn’t exist, but we only have so much data about the temperature of the earth, because we could only record temperatures acurately the last few decades. Meanwhile the Earth has been around for billions of years and may just be going through one of its cycles. Hyprocrisy was the point I was trying to make.

Back to the issue at hand: To question terrorism news as “scare tactics” is to imply that there isn’t as much of a problem with terrorism as thought.

None of that matters here, however, because this article consists of TOTALLY unfounded information. We have NO IDEA IF IT’S TRUE, NO SOURCE (a fellow blogger is no a source), and NO CONTEXT TO PUT IT IN. It’s just bad, slanted journalism to try to get people to form certain opinions… aka Propaganda.

CP –
My, what a big long post! I’m afraid that quantity did not equal quality though.
Firstly, no it wasn’t me debating about Wal-Mart. Nevertheless, you continue to try to distract from the issue, in this case by quoting scaremongering as if it was fact. I repeat: the cost of climate change has no relevance to the issue of whether it is a real phenomena or not.
“They proposed a theory that we had to alter our lives dramatically or die, they were wrong, but now we should follow them, because they aren’t wrong this time”
WTF? The conclusion you are implying is that meteorology as a science is to be forever discounted because they were wrong once. Scientific opinion was once that the earth was flat. Do you therefore refute the current theory of a round earth? At any rate, the current concern over climate change is of a whole different order to any 1970’s scare stories about ice ages that you may have picked up on. And, in case you haven’t realised, Time is not actually a scientific journal.
“How many scientists does it take for a consensus anyway? 1,700 maybe?”
Again, are you serious? No, 1,700 isn’t enough, because that would be a tiny minority of meteorologists, let alone all scientists. Consensus is defined in the dictionary as “majority view”.
“Actually it is based on computer models which cannot accurately account for all the variables that influence the climate.”
Sigh. Yes, computer simulations are the chosen tool for the scientists to test their scientific theories. And yes, it is not possible to ever predict the weather completely accurately, due to the chaotic nature of the non-linear differential equations used in these models. However, by using scientific methods, scientists can make deductions about the climate from these models, which they then publish, to be peer reviewed by other scientists, who of course virtually all agree that models demonstrating a future change in the climate are scientifically valid. As I’ve explained before. Repeatedly. Would you like me to explain what ‘consensus’ means again?
And so, a plea: please stop peddling your half-baked theories as if they were fact, until you can at least convince a ‘consensus’ (that word again) of scientists that you have a shred of evidence to back you up.
Back to the thread…
Well, actually, shall I? I was more interested in refuting your views on climate change to be honest. I’m not a huge fan of the original article, which you are correct in saying is mostly hearsay. Mind you, I am actually interested in your opinion, as a non-Christian Republican, on the effect that the links between Christian fundamentalism and Republicanism has on policy.
In answer to a direct question: I will fight with kooks of any description, wherever I find them. Finally, I did not accuse end-timers (i.e. those who believe we are living in the end-time) of being hypocrites, but rather of being lunatics.

Billie – I will keep this brief.

“And so, a plea: please stop peddling your half-baked theories as if they were fact, until you can at least convince a ‘consensus’ (that word again) of scientists that you have a shred of evidence to back you up.”

Half baked ideas would be those that the left does not like. You ingnored the following:

A Gallup survey indicated that only 17% of the members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society thought the warming of the 20th century was the result of an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

So 17% agree with out the manmade global warming, and 83% don’t. Damn I thought 83% was greater than 17%, you know a consensus. And by the way, the consensus was that the world was flat, not the other way around. Those who thought the earth was round were the ones who did not believe the consensus.

CP-
You did provide a link for that poll, and I apologize for not reading your post thoroughly enough. All the same, 17000 names is still a tiny minority of American scientists, Geri Halliwell PhD notwithstanding. I still stand by my previous (somewhat rushed) post.

Hello! Five more minutes research seems to show that your poll is based on research from 1998, and the signature pages are copyrighted 2001. This doesn’t seem awfully up-to-date to me. Am I missing something here?

Billie – Sorry I do not have the time to continue this debate at the moment. But I would like to know, since 17,000 is a tiny minority of American Scientist, just how many support your side? How about some numbers, since you have the consensus.

What did your last slave die of? OK then, your 17,000 apparently includes 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists. The AMS website (which would only cover a cross-section of the above categories, and will in any case not represent all such scientists) claims over 12,000 members. So, even on this limited information, it is clear that an overwhelming majority of meteorologists, as well as scientists in general, do not support your position.

Oh yes, and I have used up-to-date, 2006 information from AMS. I hope that’s alright for you?

Billie – I must be missing something, but I did go to private school, and I am a mere economist. You must be using public school math. In private school we learned that 17,000 is greater than 12,000.

Oh come on Mr P, you can do better than that. Twelve thousand is the count of meteorologists who are members of AMS. Two thousand meteorologists signed the petition. I do not know how many scientists there are in America, but if there is over twelve thousand meteorologists then I’m willing to wager that there’s a damn sight more than seventeen thousand scientists overall.

I suggest that you do not quote figures in the future if you do not understand what they represent.

Billie – Apparently you don’t understand the numbers. You state AMS has 12,000 members, the petition I pointed you to has 17,000 signers. And it is a holiday weekend so I must run, going to have some fun. And though the debate has been fun, and I may pick back up later, I know you can’t argue with someone about thier religion and win.

CP -
You’re desperate for the last word, aren’t you? Well, sorry to disappoint you.

One last time, I will explain your own petition to you. There are 17000 signatures, from all sorts of scientists. Only 2000 of the signatures are from meteorologists. Or do you think that 17000 out of 12000 meteorologists signed the petition?
Meteorology is not my (or anyone’s) religion. Maybe it seems like magic to you because you are so pig-ignorant.
You quote Fred Greening: I’ve never heard of him, but his quote consists of the kind of baseless assertions that I’ve become used to hearing from you. I would refute his assertions if there were any.
Your next quote, if it has not been taken out of context, I disagree with. So what? And your last quote is from 1970! Fucking Hell!

You wrap up with your latest cute little catchphrase: Global warming = Global socialism. You silly sod! Whether you accept the reality or not of global warming is a purely scientific question. Any politics you wish to attach comes after.

Well anyway, enjoy your weekend. Try not to shoot any beggars. Lots of love, AB.

Alien Billie – Apparently you are the one confused. I never stated all the signers were meterologist, the statement about meterologist was a different issue. But you still cannot produce numbers for your consensus, funny that such a scientific consensus would have numbers readily available.

Oh and one nice little fact for you. Your scientist base thier computer models on a 1% increase in carbon dioxide per year. When the average increase for the past several decades has averaged .4%, and is unlikely to icrease. That changes the models significantly. But the truth does not make good liberal headlines.

I know meterology is not your religion, global warming is your religion. Like all religions GW has it’s messiah, Algore aka Chicken Litlle, it’s devil, big oil, and it’s doomsday scenario, and it’s pawns.

One last question. You should be able to answer this one, since you are an alien. Were does big oil live? I mean since big oil is willing to destroy the earth for profits, then big oil must live somewhere else. They would not destroy the earth if they and thier families lived here.

I kept my eye on this thread, I thought you might be back.
Right back in my first post I said you wore a tinfoil hat, and I haven’t changed my opinion one jot. Your own quoted sources prove you wrong, but nothing will make you admit it.
“1%, 4%, blah blah”
Yes, scientists are clearly cheating with their models, they’re telling you about it and then laughing in your face.
Next – some weird shit about your beliefs, chicken little, doomsday conspiracies, more unfounded assertions blah blah.
The only reason I bothered to reply: your last sentence contains a rare return to sanity. Why would ‘Big Oil’ destroy it’s own planet? That’s a good question (as far as it goes), and obviously one I can’t answer with certainty. But the first answer that occurs to me is that those in control of the strategy of big oil are so incredibly rich that they feel their sons and daughters will get by just fine, no matter how bad it is for ordinary people.
However, if you actually mean ‘I don’t believe in GW because big oil would never be so stupid”, then no I don’t accept your argument in the slightest.

Billie – Glad you made it back. I will make this my last visit here. You will not change your religious views, and you sure as hell won’t change my mind. But on the good side with Cal. now giving in to the green scare people will actually get to see what this movement is really all about. But I thought I would leave you with a nice quote.

“Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that “liberals” will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists”

The fact is the left simply cannot stand successful people, because the left wishes to tell people how to live, and successful people do not listen to fools. The left screams about “personal liberties”, but that simply means abortion on demand, even for 10 year olds, homosexual marriage, or anything dealing with perversion, but all other choices should be made by the nanny state (what you eat, drive, size of your house, etc.).

meteorologist study current weather patterns. Many of them do not beleive in global warming. However what we should be looking at at data created by climatologists, people who study earths climate history, not the extended forecast.