The Origins of "Consensus" Science?

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Yet another person who presses "Post" before reading what he's replying to.

I read it. What did I miss? You agree then for the need for skepticism and further study, and you're not calling us gullible or ignorant for doing so?
Clear that one up for me if you will.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

This is why I am skeptical. What other variables are out there? We don't know.

Exactly, and the question at hand is - do we accept this prediction as "fact" in the scientific community, or do we continue in the pursuit of true science, to ask questions. Or do we simply attack those who do as stupid, ignorant, and gullible?

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

Yet another person who presses "Post" before reading what he's replying to.

I read it. What did I miss? You agree then for the need for skepticism and further study, and you're not calling us gullible or ignorant for doing so?
Clear that one up for me if you will.

I was comparing Crichton FAVORABLY to Limbaugh, a point that you appear to have missed completely. I wrote that he isn't even in the same league.

...

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

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

This is why I am skeptical. What other variables are out there? We don't know.

Same is true of gravity (the physicists are still trying to explain it), yet we wear parachutes when jumping out of planes if we want to survive.

...

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

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

This is why I am skeptical. What other variables are out there? We don't know.

Exactly, and the question at hand is - do we accept this prediction as "fact" in the scientific community, or do we continue in the pursuit of true science, to ask questions. Or do we simply attack those who do as stupid, ignorant, and gullible?

I've asked this question of skeptics and deniers and never received an answer, maybe you'll respond.

Humans pump something over 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Scientific measurements of the CO2 content of the atmosphere show that it's increasing by just about that amount each year. So please explain how this match between human CO2 output and the increase in atmospheric CO2 is just coincidence and how the real causes of the rise in atmospheric CO2 (as the deniers claim) are natural processes, and also explain where the man made CO2 goes according to Denier Theory. Thank you.

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

Indeed! There are things that we can predict with certainty even though we do not fully understand it. For example, I can predict that the state of the industrialization of the earth will be different in 100 years and be fairly certain of this. I just cannot predict what those changes will be.

Meanwhile there are things that we cannot predict with certainty even though we understand it. I understand the nuances of football pretty well and predicted my Raiders would lose handily. It isn't happening,

But just wait and they might!!! Oh. They may win this game, but just wait and they'll lose next week (which doesn't matter - I'm wrong this week - so far).

And that is where the propblem is. We cannot call predictions science if we can't test them. Well, we can test them - over the course of a hunfred years.

Even then, when you point to a cause it becomes difficult. If warming is unprecedented in the last 1300 years, well, what was going on 1300 years ago? Let us look at the past to discover those mechanisms and compare to today.

Instead, I get the sense that the past is being swept under the rug.

I really like parsimony. The simplest explanation for a phenomenon is usually the best. "Global warming is caused by humans" is not an adequate explanation because it has happened before without humans.

"Global warming is caused by CO2" is more palateable. But apparently there are past warming events for which this does not correlate, so let us look a bit further for another explanation.

NO!!! THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION FOR THS WARMING.

Kallend - here it is put most simply - can all causation for climate change - with the exception of anthropogenic processes - be ruled out?

I suspect that any scientist with a shred of honesty would say, "No." Non-anthropogenic factors cannot be ruled out of the causal chain.

And until they are all understood then we are operating on some degree of conjecture.

My job is to operate in uncertainty and to find facts that support my client's position, thus building a solid case. I go with a position and build facts and spin and conjectures and inference to build that case.

And I have lost some.

My cynicism is directed to that. The position is "human activity is causing global warming and will continue to cause greater global warming."
From that position a case is being built. Contrary data is overlooked. Historical data of it happening before is minimized.

And those who are in disagreement will be attacked and disparaged for being contrary to the position.

Other possible causes cannot be ruled out, John. Until other possible causes are ruled out, anthropogenic sources as the primary source of climate change is a matter of conjecture.

Or, to be most direct, it is an "educated guess."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JackC 0]

Quote

My job is to operate in uncertainty and to find facts that support my client's position, thus building a solid case. I go with a position and build facts and spin and conjectures and inference to build that case.

Interesting choice of words. You said "find facts that support my clients position" and you didn't use the word "truth" at all. It seems the job of a lawyer is to take a biased position (either prosecution or defense) and present the facts that support that position. In fact you would be bad at your job if you presented facts that contradict your position. If you make the assumption that science works in the same way, you would be wrong. Science doesn't work like one of your cases. Scientist actually want to find the truth, not support their client's position.

[lawrocket 3]

Exactly. And this is my problem with they GW movement - I recognize what I am seeing. Hence my trepidation with it.

I have issues with the way my profession operates. When I sense that coming from others I have those same problems.

A scientist would say, "we can now circumnavigate the north pole by sea vessel. We can find no evidence that this has ever been observed by man."

An advocate would put more spin into it and say, "this has never happened before." Um, this may be true, but now there is a problem of "how do we know that?"

I have seen the latter too frequently - the making of leaps that cannot be averred with any degree of certainty at all.

It could have been navigable regularly until 1400 A.D. but we simply do not know.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JackC 0]

Scientists hardly ever make categorical claims, that spin is usually put on by the media, politicians, lawyers and the like. So if you don't like the spin, get your science from scientific sources. But I think you're dong exactly what you accuse the so-called "GW movement" of doing: picking a position and finding the evidence to support it.

In simple terms:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Fact.
Man is pumping about 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Fact.
The observed concentrations of atmospheric CO2 is increasing in proportion with anthropogenic emissions. Fact.

With those three facts, you have got to consider anthropogenic global warming as a strong possibility.

[lawrocket 3]

You are probably right. I have taken the position that the GW movement is taking a position and finding evidence to support it by finding evidence to support it. And there is plenty of it.

And regarding spin, I posted quotes from Dr. Hanson - the big dog scientist himself - that were loaded with diatribe and spin.

Finally, you posted about the greenhouse gas, CO2. Indeed - anthropogenic CO2 must be acknowledged as a possibility - or even a probability - as a cause for global warming.

But said acknowledgment does not, in my mind, justify the diving headfirst mentality of it. I want to see more things ruled out.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

There are plenty of peer reviewed papers that can lead to different conclusions.

Please cite a peer reviewed study that concludes that global warming does not have a significant anthropogenic component.

Quote

Alas, my business is that reasonable minds can differ in interpretation and prediction.

Yes, but in this instance, there is, in fact, a consensus among those who are knowledgeable of the topic.

Quote

And this is what cannot be tested - prediction.

Not necessarily true. Many of the predictions made by GW models have matched data actually observed.

Quote

What will be the increase in sea level in 2100? We can make predictions, but we cannot test them and get an answer until 2100.

We can't know for certain that the sun will not explode within the next 24 hours until those 24 hours pass, but the probability of such an explosion is so low, we can confidently predict that it will not occur.

Quote

Sebastian Janikowski just connected on a 57 yard field goal. I predict on the basis of his past kicks that he may kick a fg in excess of 64 yards by 2013. He may. May.

This cannot be tested.

Nope, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be modeled on order to calculate, with reasonable accuracy, the probability of such an attempt being successful, given certain criteria. Whether anyone would want to go through the trouble of developing such a model is a completely different issue.

Quote

Predictions are hypotheses.

Strictly speaking, no. Predictions might be made based on a hypothesis (or based on a well tested theory, such as Newton's Laws of Motion), but the predictions aren't the hypothesis. The hypothesis is the theoretical model being tested.

Quote

Science is the testing of these hypotheses under controlled condiditions. Good science includes making of little or no guesses and taking the relevant factors into account.

Agreed

Quote

Good science proved my hypothesis that it would hurt.

Good science doesn't prove hypotheses to be true. It can only show consistency between predictions based on hypotheses and actual observations. Good science can, however, disprove a hypothesis.

Quote

But someone points out, "you had nobody suffering parathesia in your sample.". Oops. A variable I did not consider, but this does not invalidate my data or my conclusion, whiched was based on that data.

It does indicate your hypothesis needs to be modified.

Quote

This is why I am skeptical. What other variables are out there? We don't know.

Right, there could be other variables. However, since scientists are generally not claiming that global warming has only an anthropogenic component, such new variables would be extremely unlikely to cause the current well tested hypothesis, i.e. that global warming has a significant anthropogenic component, to be rejected.

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

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I really like parsimony. The simplest explanation for a phenomenon is usually the best. "Global warming is caused by humans" is not an adequate explanation because it has happened before without humans.

"Global warming is caused by CO2" is more palateable. But apparently there are past warming events for which this does not correlate, so let us look a bit further for another explanation.

NO!!! THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION FOR THS WARMING.

No one is suggesting that humans are the only cause of global warming. Data and observations suggest that humans play a significant role in the global warming we see today, warming that is occurring at an unprecedented rate.

Quote

Kallend - here it is put most simply - can all causation for climate change - with the exception of anthropogenic processes - be ruled out?

I suspect that any scientist with a shred of honesty would say, "No." Non-anthropogenic factors cannot be ruled out of the causal chain.

Nor have scientists ruled other factors out of the causal chain.

Quote

And until they are all understood then we are operating on some degree of conjecture.

Are you suggesting that, given a function of multiple variables, we cannot determine how any one of those variables affects the value of the function?

Quote

My job is to operate in uncertainty and to find facts that support my client's position, thus building a solid case. I go with a position and build facts and spin and conjectures and inference to build that case.

There is little similarity between an attorney's job and a scientist's job. An attorney has an obligation to his client, regardless of the facts of the case. A scientist has an obligation to the truth, regardless of who might find the truth unpalatable.

Quote

The position is "human activity is causing global warming and will continue to cause greater global warming."
From that position a case is being built. Contrary data is overlooked. Historical data of it happening before is minimized.

Exactly what contrary evidence is being overlooked? What historical data is being minimized? Please, enlighten us. What facts about global warming did you learn in law school (or practice) to which climatologists or not privy?

Quote

And those who are in disagreement will be attacked and disparaged for being contrary to the position.

When they misrepresent the position of scientists, and then base their disagreements wholly on those misrepresentations, as you did in your post, then yes, they will likely be called on it.

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

[kallend 2,107]

So where do the (more than) 30 billion tons of CO2 go?


Say your car's gas tank contains 10 gallons of gas. You added another gallon, and you then measure the contents of the tank and find it now contains 11 gallons of gas. Would you then reasonably conclude the extra gallon came from "natural sources" and not from the gallon you added?

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

So where do the (more than) 30 billion tons of CO2 go?


Say your car's gas tank contains 10 gallons of gas. You added another gallon, and you then measure the contents of the tank and find it now contains 11 gallons of gas. Would you then reasonably conclude the extra gallon came from "natural sources" and not from the gallon you added?

Serious lead into a question.

You speak of 30 billion tons of CO2. I dont know any different so I will give you that one for the sake of this post.

My quesion is, what percentage of the total atomosphere (in tons) is 30 billion tons?

Do you know? It is possible to know?

I trully wonder.

Thanks in advance if you have the info

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

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

I was comparing Crichton FAVORABLY to Limbaugh, a point that you appear to have missed completely. I wrote that he isn't even in the same league.

OK then I did miss it. If that was a favorable comment toward Dr. Crichton and his article, it was, shall we say, veiled.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

warming that is occurring at an unprecedented rate.

Can you prove it? Nope. Which is the topic of the original post.

We can't prove that it is "unprecedented." It probably isn't "unprecedented."

And that's my point. This is where legitimacy of GW is lost. If there are unverifiable things like this, then what else is unverifiable? What is fear-mongering? (in fact, from what I've learned, warming like this was last precedented at about 1300).

Quote

Are you suggesting that, given a function of multiple variables, we cannot determine how any one of those variables affects the value of the function?

No. I'm suggesting that it would be arrogant to believe that we know all of the variables. We very well may, but we cannot know this for sure, now can we?

Quote

An attorney has an obligation to his client, regardless of the facts of the case

And an attorney has an obligation to the court of candor. I have an obligation to take only those positions consistent with the truth. Other attorneys do, as well, which is why one of them faced private reproval from the Bar after I reported her.

Quote

Exactly what contrary evidence is being overlooked? What historical data is being minimized? Please, enlighten us. What facts about global warming did you learn in law school (or practice) to which climatologists or not privy?

I didn't learn them at law school. But I do know as an historical fact that there existed the "Medievel Climate Optimum" as they called it. Hence, my own studies have shown me some historical matters that I believe to be of significance. The "Little Ice Age" was going on in 1850 - ironically, when instrumentation because more reliable. I don't think we are in an Ice Age any more, which would suggest that the earth is warmer than it was in 1850.

I merely have issues using baselines like that without explanation. Indeed, many could look at the 1930's as the hottest decade in North American since records were kept, and 1934 as the hottest year. We haven't matched 134 degrees in North America since then, when we'd think that if it is hotter now than it was then we'd see hotter temperatures.

Quote

When they misrepresent the position of scientists, and then base their disagreements wholly on those misrepresentations, as you did in your post, then yes, they will likely be called on it.

That this warming is unprecedented is a misrepresentation. Flat out. A lie? Maybe not, for a lie is provably false and known to the speaker to be provably false. I don't know if you know it to be provably false.

I'm not making representations of truth here. I am making representations that the truth is not yet known - and maybe not knowable.

Prove me wrong. PRove to me that the earth has not been hotter than now since it was formed (a ludicrous thought, eh?). Prove to me that at no time since homo erectus has the earth been hotter. Prove to me that during no 150 year period since homo erectus has the earth increased its temperature.

You cannot prove it - not with the reliability of modern instrumentation. All you can do is infer, correct?

That is my point. To state as fact that this is unprecedented cannot be proven - at least in a clear and convincing fashion.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Can you prove it? Nope. Which is the topic of the original post.

We can't prove that it is "unprecedented." It probably isn't "unprecedented."

Then tell us, counselor, what is the precedent?

Quote

I'm suggesting that it would be arrogant to believe that we know all of the variables. We very well may, but we cannot know this for sure, now can we?

And you seem to be missing the point that we don't need to know all the variables to understand that humans are a significant one. It's simply not statistically necessary.

Quote

And an attorney has an obligation to the court of candor. I have an obligation to take only those positions consistent with the truth.

Are you suggesting that it is more important for attorney's to be honest than it is for them to give their clients the very best legal representation they are able to give? Attorney's never lie on behalf of their clients? If that were the case, there would be no need for attorney client privilege.

Quote

I didn't learn them at law school. But I do know as an historical fact that there existed the "Medievel Climate Optimum" as they called it. Hence, my own studies have shown me some historical matters that I believe to be of significance. The "Little Ice Age" was going on in 1850 - ironically, when instrumentation because more reliable. I don't think we are in an Ice Age any more, which would suggest that the earth is warmer than it was in 1850.

Perhaps you will enlighten us with the all important rate of temperature change then compared to now. No one has said the earth's temperatures don't naturally fluctuate.

Quote

Indeed, many could look at the 1930's as the hottest decade in North American since records were kept, and 1934 as the hottest year. We haven't matched 134 degrees in North America since then, when we'd think that if it is hotter now than it was then we'd see hotter temperatures.

Localized temperatures do not equate to average temperatures.

Quote

That this warming is unprecedented is a misrepresentation. Flat out. A lie? Maybe not, for a lie is provably false and known to the speaker to be provably false. I don't know if you know it to be provably false.

Then what's the precedent? Without a known example of increases in average temperature equal to or greater than what we see now, there is no precedent. With respect to the historical data available, what we see is unprecedented.

Quote

I'm not making representations of truth here. I am making representations that the truth is not yet known - and maybe not knowable.

If you're waiting until we know every single possible variable that could possibly influence global temperatures, then you'll wait forever. Fortunately, it is not necessary to know all those variables to draw valid conclusions with very high levels of confidence.

Quote

Prove me wrong. PRove to me that the earth has not been hotter than now since it was formed (a ludicrous thought, eh?).

Yep, a ludicrous thought. As you know, we have to be aware of something occurring previously before that something can be considered a precedent. The best analysis of available data suggests that what we are seeing is unprecedented.

Quote

Prove to me that at no time since homo erectus has the earth been hotter. Prove to me that during no 150 year period since homo erectus has the earth increased its temperature.

Excellent straw man, although I'm sure it was unintentional. Those are not the claims being made by scientists.

Quote

You cannot prove it - not with the reliability of modern instrumentation. All you can do is infer, correct?

Generally speaking, outside of Mathematics, proof is an illusion. It doesn't exist. Instead, we have conclusions that have very high probabilities of being correct.

Quote

That is my point. To state as fact that this is unprecedented cannot be proven - at least in a clear and convincing fashion.

Again, what is the precedent? I'm sure climatologists would love for you to share your infinite wisdom regarding their area of expertise. Maybe they could give you some pointers with the law.

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

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

So where do the (more than) 30 billion tons of CO2 go?


Say your car's gas tank contains 10 gallons of gas. You added another gallon, and you then measure the contents of the tank and find it now contains 11 gallons of gas. Would you then reasonably conclude the extra gallon came from "natural sources" and not from the gallon you added?

Serious lead into a question.

You speak of 30 billion tons of CO2. I dont know any different so I will give you that one for the sake of this post.

My quesion is, what percentage of the total atomosphere (in tons) is 30 billion tons?

Do you know? It is possible to know?

I trully wonder.

Thanks in advance if you have the info

The mass of the atmosphere is approx 5x10^15 tons - easy to calculate from the radius of Earth and the atmospheric pressure at sea level.

...

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

[JackC 0]

Quote

You are probably right. I have taken the position that the GW movement is taking a position and finding evidence to support it by finding evidence to support it. And there is plenty of it.

But science doesn't work like that. They do not adopt a position and then find the evidence to support it. This is a cardinal sin in science and if someone is found doing it would mean the end of their career. No exceptions. Look up Jan Hendrik Schön to see what happens to fraudulent scientists.

Quote

And regarding spin, I posted quotes from Dr. Hanson - the big dog scientist himself - that were loaded with diatribe and spin.

Yes, James Hansen has been uncharacteristically outspoken on the subject. That is rare in a scientist and was apparently a deliberate ploy on the side of Hansen. According to a recent BBC Panorama documentary, Hansen weighed up the options of making categorical claims against the alternative of caveats and decided that governments would take no notice if caveats were in place, so he blew the whistle. He apparently thought the message was so important that it needed to be categorical. His decision wasn't taken lightly.

Quote

Finally, you posted about the greenhouse gas, CO2. Indeed - anthropogenic CO2 must be acknowledged as a possibility - or even a probability - as a cause for global warming.

But said acknowledgment does not, in my mind, justify the diving headfirst mentality of it. I want to see more things ruled out.

If CO2 is a greenhouse gas (it is) and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increasing through anthropogenic mechanisms (it has, by ~35%), what exactly do you need to see ruled out?

What do you mean by "the diving headfirst mentality of it"? It's not like we're actually doing much about it. New coal fired power stations are being built, we're drilling for oil like never before, CO2 emissions are rising, treaties haven't made much difference. What exactly has changed?

[JackC 0]

Quote

That this warming is unprecedented is a misrepresentation. Flat out. A lie? Maybe not, for a lie is provably false and known to the speaker to be provably false. I don't know if you know it to be provably false.

I'm not making representations of truth here. I am making representations that the truth is not yet known - and maybe not knowable.

Prove me wrong. PRove to me that the earth has not been hotter than now since it was formed (a ludicrous thought, eh?). Prove to me that at no time since homo erectus has the earth been hotter. Prove to me that during no 150 year period since homo erectus has the earth increased its temperature.

You cannot prove it - not with the reliability of modern instrumentation. All you can do is infer, correct?

That is my point. To state as fact that this is unprecedented cannot be proven - at least in a clear and convincng fashion.

So your basic objection is that we cannot know if some causal link is true because we do not know everything, and because we do not know everything there is doubt in anything we think we do know. That's a damn good way of making sure you can believe or deny absolutely anything you want. It might be a useful tactic for a lawyer, where the truth is less important than winning the argument, but not for a scientist.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So where do the (more than) 30 billion tons of CO2 go?

Good question. Apparently, the atmosphere. At that point it either sticks around or is metabolized by some process.

Where does all that O2 go that is produced by ocean plankton?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

So where do the (more than) 30 billion tons of CO2 go?

Good question. Apparently, the atmosphere. At that point it either sticks around or is metabolized by some process. ?

Measurements of atmospheric CO2 seem to indicate that IT STICKS AROUND.

I notice you avoided comment on my gas tank analogy.

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

So where do the (more than) 30 billion tons of CO2 go?

Good question. Apparently, the atmosphere. At that point it either sticks around or is metabolized by some process.

Where does all that O2 go that is produced by ocean plankton?

I have enjoyed reading your posts here. You have been able to type what I think better than anybody I have seen.

But to this point, the oceans are the biggest storers of the CO2. That very fact is why I talk about temp changes leading or following CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Some of the studies looking at temps and CO2 indicated that temp changes lead CO2 levels. That makes sense when you look at ocean storage of CO2. If the water temp rises, it can not hold as much CO2. Conversly when it cools it can hold more.

We may now be coming to end of a warming cycle. It that is the case, in a few years the CO2 levels may start to drop as the oceans will be able to hold more. It also explains the reasons for the increases (other than us) in the CO2 levels.

It is an intersting topic and I am sure I will be flammed for speaking against (what I am beginning to believe is) the religon that is global warming. The man make type.......

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So where do the (more than) 30 billion tons of CO2 go?


Say your car's gas tank contains 10 gallons of gas. You added another gallon, and you then measure the contents of the tank and find it now contains 11 gallons of gas. Would you then reasonably conclude the extra gallon came from "natural sources" and not from the gallon you added?

Serious lead into a question.

You speak of 30 billion tons of CO2. I dont know any different so I will give you that one for the sake of this post.

My quesion is, what percentage of the total atomosphere (in tons) is 30 billion tons?

Do you know? It is possible to know?

I trully wonder.

Thanks in advance if you have the info

The mass of the atmosphere is approx 5x10^15 tons - easy to calculate from the radius of Earth and the atmospheric pressure at sea level.

So, what percentage of the atmosphere is the current CO2 levels?

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

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So where do the (more than) 30 billion tons of CO2 go?


Say your car's gas tank contains 10 gallons of gas. You added another gallon, and you then measure the contents of the tank and find it now contains 11 gallons of gas. Would you then reasonably conclude the extra gallon came from "natural sources" and not from the gallon you added?

Serious lead into a question.

You speak of 30 billion tons of CO2. I dont know any different so I will give you that one for the sake of this post.

My quesion is, what percentage of the total atomosphere (in tons) is 30 billion tons?

Do you know? It is possible to know?

I trully wonder.

Thanks in advance if you have the info

The mass of the atmosphere is approx 5x10^15 tons - easy to calculate from the radius of Earth and the atmospheric pressure at sea level.

So, what percentage of the atmosphere is the current CO2 levels?

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/07.htm

About 0.038% by volume or 0.059% by mass, and rising.

...

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