MORE LIBERAL INSANITY New York outlaws open doors & windows if you have the air conditioner on.

[JimBowie1958]

www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/08/new-york-just-cracked-down-on-businesses-that-spew-air-conditioning-onto-the-sidewalk/

Unbelievably insane & intrusive law put forth by our neighborly liberals.

Considering the summer power shortages that have resulted in grid failure and blackouts, stopping businesses from air conditioning the sidewalks sounds like a good idea.

Then the New Yawk government should justify it based on that good idea and not on Climate Change hysteria.

 

[Flopper]

www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/08/new-york-just-cracked-down-on-businesses-that-spew-air-conditioning-onto-the-sidewalk/

Unbelievably insane & intrusive law put forth by our neighborly liberals.

Considering the summer power shortages that have resulted in grid failure and blackouts, stopping businesses from air conditioning the sidewalks sounds like a good idea.

Then the New Yawk government should justify it based on that good idea and not on Climate Change hysteria.

Well, I'm sure it has some impact, although pretty damn small.
This law, which has a number of exceptions is an extension to an earlier law that only applied to chain stores.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/n...rs-and-windows-if-air-conditioning-is-on.html

 

[CowboyTed]

Listen, you have no respectable scientific organisation who will back your position. The evidence is overwhelming.

You have Oil Companies paying to cause confusion...

You are trying to say every major scientific organisation is the world is wrong. This is not like WMDs in Iraq, we have real evidence.

So lets go again... Give us three peer reviewed papers from credible authors in the climate field.

Lol, you are still arguing for authority in a field of endeavor that is NOT basedon authority but on investigation and reason .

But still, I will play your stupid anti-science game for a moment.

Lists of scintiests who are deniers of Anthropogenic Climate Change.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm - Climate Change Dispatch


THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Seven recent papers that disprove man-made global warming

So despite the fact that science does not work on the basis of consensus, other than the idiots that don't really understand science, there is dissent among climate scientists. The subject is NOT settled and it is not proven.

That is all Warmista propaganda in an attempt to get more government funding and defend that funding to research what the government needs to have the new authority to do to combat Global Warming horse shit.

So without the unified establishment of all scientists repeating the same facts being FACT, there is no authoritative response that is truly authoritative. You need to use your won mind and sort through the conflicting claims and decide for yourself. I know that is a lot of work and might make you unpopular with your goose stepping friends, but that is what an independent thinking person would do.

Hear I am making it simple...

Give us three peer reviewed papers from credible authors in the climate field.

You can say 1350+, then I just need to prove one as bogus and I can call them all bogus...

So I am giving you a chance to make a top three... You are saying it is easy, go on pick three out of your 1350 and If I prove they are either not relevant, not substantive or discredited then your arguement is mute...

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hear I am making it simple...

Give us three peer reviewed papers from credible authors in the climate field.

You can say 1350+, then I just need to prove one as bogus and I can call them all bogus...

So I am giving you a chance to make a top three... You are saying it is easy, go on pick three out of your 1350 and If I prove they are either not relevant, not substantive or discredited then your arguement is mute...

I gave you a list of seven published papers said to disprove Climate Change theory. That you are too stupid to realize that this also includes two sets of three published papers reaffirms that there is no point in trying to communicate with you. You are a willfully ignorant fucktard and I am providing nothing more for you to dismiss with a wave of you idiot hand.

You may now go back to your porn, fool.

 

[CowboyTed]

Listen, you have no respectable scientific organisation who will back your position. The evidence is overwhelming.

You have Oil Companies paying to cause confusion...

You are trying to say every major scientific organisation is the world is wrong. This is not like WMDs in Iraq, we have real evidence.

So lets go again... Give us three peer reviewed papers from credible authors in the climate field.

Lol, you are still arguing for authority in a field of endeavor that is NOT basedon authority but on investigation and reason .

But still, I will play your stupid anti-science game for a moment.

Lists of scintiests who are deniers of Anthropogenic Climate Change.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm - Climate Change Dispatch


THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Seven recent papers that disprove man-made global warming

So despite the fact that science does not work on the basis of consensus, other than the idiots that don't really understand science, there is dissent among climate scientists. The subject is NOT settled and it is not proven.

That is all Warmista propaganda in an attempt to get more government funding and defend that funding to research what the government needs to have the new authority to do to combat Global Warming horse shit.

So without the unified establishment of all scientists repeating the same facts being FACT, there is no authoritative response that is truly authoritative. You need to use your won mind and sort through the conflicting claims and decide for yourself. I know that is a lot of work and might make you unpopular with your goose stepping friends, but that is what an independent thinking person would do.

Just to show you the first on the list:
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?

1. Richard S. Lindzen

was wriiten by Richard Lindzen who later said:
According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[67] "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.[67] Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,[8] and offered more support in a 2009 paper.[50]

 

[CowboyTed]

Hear I am making it simple...

Give us three peer reviewed papers from credible authors in the climate field.

You can say 1350+, then I just need to prove one as bogus and I can call them all bogus...

So I am giving you a chance to make a top three... You are saying it is easy, go on pick three out of your 1350 and If I prove they are either not relevant, not substantive or discredited then your arguement is mute...

I gave you a list of seven published papers said to disprove Climate Change theory. That you are too stupid to realize that this also includes two sets of three published papers reaffirms that there is no point in trying to communicate with you. You are a willfully ignorant fucktard and I am providing nothing more for you to dismiss with a wave of you idiot hand.

You may now go back to your porn, fool.

Right first on on the list
1. Lindzen and Choi –The Earth has a safety release valve
Written in 2002, by 2012 Lindzen had said:
According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[67] "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.[67] Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,[8] and offered more support in a 2009 paper.[50]

Choi was a secondary and has written nothing recently to dispute climate change.
Influence of cloud phase composition on climate feedbacks - Choi - 2014 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library


2. Spencer and Braswell – Cloud feedback is net negative
Pulling out Roy Spencer early we see... The guy who signed a document to say that eath is 6000 years old.
Spencer is a signatory[not in citation given] to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[30][31] which states[not in citation given] that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting"

Paper Disputing Basic Science of Climate Change is
Later an editor resigns over the peer review process that was used for these two.

Here are the more complex reasons why the whole paper is bogus
Roy Spencer's paper on climate sensitivity

3. R.S. Knox and D.H. Douglass – The missing heat is not in the ocean.

Seriously, you have run out of people who work in climate filed and going to a bunch of phis

A 2007 paper by Douglass and coworkers questioned the reliability of 22 of the most commonly used global climate models analyzed by Benjamin D. Santer and used by the IPCC to predict accelerated warming in the troposphere.[3][4] The study had originally been submitted to Geophysical Research Letters the previous year, but was rejected in September 2006 on Santer's recommendation.[5] Santer and 17 co-authors later rebutted Douglass' paper.

Here are the more complex reasons why the whole paper is bogus
Douglass & Knox 2012 pre-bunked


Sorry I am only doing three... This took basic googling to debunk...
Is this the best you got...

This was all too easy, if time consuming.
Right give me just one paper....

 

[SwimExpert]

How do they plan to enforce this? You won't know if the A/C is on unless you do an inspection. And without a warrant, it's not going to happen. Somehow I can't see anyone being taken seriously when they run to the judge and say "Quick, sir, they have the windows open! The interests of justice demand that we investigate!"

It's a very simple thing to enforce.

I don't think you quite understand what was going on.

Street level stores, like shoe stores, or book stores had their air conditioners going full blast. Then? They leave the door open. What happens on very hot days is that you pass by the stores and get a blast of cold air. It's meant to attract customers into the store, because even if you had no intention of buying shoes or books, you might be tempted to escape the heat because of the cold blast.

It's not a hard thing to spot.

And? That has nothing to do with my post.

 

[Sallow]

How do they plan to enforce this? You won't know if the A/C is on unless you do an inspection. And without a warrant, it's not going to happen. Somehow I can't see anyone being taken seriously when they run to the judge and say "Quick, sir, they have the windows open! The interests of justice demand that we investigate!"

It's a very simple thing to enforce.

I don't think you quite understand what was going on.

Street level stores, like shoe stores, or book stores had their air conditioners going full blast. Then? They leave the door open. What happens on very hot days is that you pass by the stores and get a blast of cold air. It's meant to attract customers into the store, because even if you had no intention of buying shoes or books, you might be tempted to escape the heat because of the cold blast.

It's not a hard thing to spot.

And? That has nothing to do with my post.

Sure it does.

And it's a ridiculous assumption that someone "needs a warrant" to inspect a business open to the public.

Here's a newflash for ya.

In New York City, businesses are cited for violations all the time.

Keeps them clean and safe.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hear I am making it simple...

Give us three peer reviewed papers from credible authors in the climate field.

You can say 1350+, then I just need to prove one as bogus and I can call them all bogus...

So I am giving you a chance to make a top three... You are saying it is easy, go on pick three out of your 1350 and If I prove they are either not relevant, not substantive or discredited then your arguement is mute...

I gave you a list of seven published papers said to disprove Climate Change theory. That you are too stupid to realize that this also includes two sets of three published papers reaffirms that there is no point in trying to communicate with you. You are a willfully ignorant fucktard and I am providing nothing more for you to dismiss with a wave of you idiot hand.

You may now go back to your porn, fool.

Right first on on the list
1. Lindzen and Choi –The Earth has a safety release valve
Written in 2002, by 2012 Lindzen had said:
According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[67] "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.[67] Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,[8] and offered more support in a 2009 paper.[50]

Choi was a secondary and has written nothing recently to dispute climate change.
Influence of cloud phase composition on climate feedbacks - Choi - 2014 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library


2. Spencer and Braswell – Cloud feedback is net negative
Pulling out Roy Spencer early we see... The guy who signed a document to say that eath is 6000 years old.
Spencer is a signatory[not in citation given] to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[30][31] which states[not in citation given] that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting"

Paper Disputing Basic Science of Climate Change is
Later an editor resigns over the peer review process that was used for these two.

Here are the more complex reasons why the whole paper is bogus
Roy Spencer's paper on climate sensitivity

3. R.S. Knox and D.H. Douglass – The missing heat is not in the ocean.

Seriously, you have run out of people who work in climate filed and going to a bunch of phis

A 2007 paper by Douglass and coworkers questioned the reliability of 22 of the most commonly used global climate models analyzed by Benjamin D. Santer and used by the IPCC to predict accelerated warming in the troposphere.[3][4] The study had originally been submitted to Geophysical Research Letters the previous year, but was rejected in September 2006 on Santer's recommendation.[5] Santer and 17 co-authors later rebutted Douglass' paper.

Here are the more complex reasons why the whole paper is bogus
Douglass & Knox 2012 pre-bunked


Sorry I am only doing three... This took basic googling to debunk...
Is this the best you got...

This was all too easy, if time consuming.
Right give me just one paper....

You didn't debunk anything.

I think you need to relearn the English Language.

 

[SwimExpert]

And it's a ridiculous assumption that someone "needs a warrant" to inspect a business open to the public.

The fourth amendment is a ridiculous assumption? Just like a liberal.

 

[CowboyTed]

Hear I am making it simple...

Give us three peer reviewed papers from credible authors in the climate field.

You can say 1350+, then I just need to prove one as bogus and I can call them all bogus...

So I am giving you a chance to make a top three... You are saying it is easy, go on pick three out of your 1350 and If I prove they are either not relevant, not substantive or discredited then your arguement is mute...

I gave you a list of seven published papers said to disprove Climate Change theory. That you are too stupid to realize that this also includes two sets of three published papers reaffirms that there is no point in trying to communicate with you. You are a willfully ignorant fucktard and I am providing nothing more for you to dismiss with a wave of you idiot hand.

You may now go back to your porn, fool.

Right first on on the list
1. Lindzen and Choi –The Earth has a safety release valve
Written in 2002, by 2012 Lindzen had said:
According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[67] "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.[67] Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,[8] and offered more support in a 2009 paper.[50]

Choi was a secondary and has written nothing recently to dispute climate change.
Influence of cloud phase composition on climate feedbacks - Choi - 2014 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library


2. Spencer and Braswell – Cloud feedback is net negative
Pulling out Roy Spencer early we see... The guy who signed a document to say that eath is 6000 years old.
Spencer is a signatory[not in citation given] to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[30][31] which states[not in citation given] that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting"

Paper Disputing Basic Science of Climate Change is
Later an editor resigns over the peer review process that was used for these two.

Here are the more complex reasons why the whole paper is bogus
Roy Spencer's paper on climate sensitivity

3. R.S. Knox and D.H. Douglass – The missing heat is not in the ocean.

Seriously, you have run out of people who work in climate filed and going to a bunch of phis

A 2007 paper by Douglass and coworkers questioned the reliability of 22 of the most commonly used global climate models analyzed by Benjamin D. Santer and used by the IPCC to predict accelerated warming in the troposphere.[3][4] The study had originally been submitted to Geophysical Research Letters the previous year, but was rejected in September 2006 on Santer's recommendation.[5] Santer and 17 co-authors later rebutted Douglass' paper.

Here are the more complex reasons why the whole paper is bogus
Douglass & Knox 2012 pre-bunked


Sorry I am only doing three... This took basic googling to debunk...
Is this the best you got...

This was all too easy, if time consuming.
Right give me just one paper....

You didn't debunk anything.

I think you need to relearn the English Language.

First Paper the Writer rescinded it...

Second one the peer review process was compromised and the main author has used falsified data and cherry picking in the past. i.e. not objective

Third One - They haven't even got relevant degrees and paper was rescinded...

I think you have no clue of the english language... This is how the scientific process works... Your top three papers have been discredited from authors who some have worked the evidence.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hear I am making it simple...

Give us three peer reviewed papers from credible authors in the climate field.

You can say 1350+, then I just need to prove one as bogus and I can call them all bogus...

So I am giving you a chance to make a top three... You are saying it is easy, go on pick three out of your 1350 and If I prove they are either not relevant, not substantive or discredited then your arguement is mute...

I gave you a list of seven published papers said to disprove Climate Change theory. That you are too stupid to realize that this also includes two sets of three published papers reaffirms that there is no point in trying to communicate with you. You are a willfully ignorant fucktard and I am providing nothing more for you to dismiss with a wave of you idiot hand.

You may now go back to your porn, fool.

Right first on on the list
1. Lindzen and Choi –The Earth has a safety release valve
Written in 2002, by 2012 Lindzen had said:
According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[67] "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.[67] Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,[8] and offered more support in a 2009 paper.[50]

Choi was a secondary and has written nothing recently to dispute climate change.
Influence of cloud phase composition on climate feedbacks - Choi - 2014 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library


2. Spencer and Braswell – Cloud feedback is net negative
Pulling out Roy Spencer early we see... The guy who signed a document to say that eath is 6000 years old.
Spencer is a signatory[not in citation given] to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[30][31] which states[not in citation given] that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting"

Paper Disputing Basic Science of Climate Change is
Later an editor resigns over the peer review process that was used for these two.

Here are the more complex reasons why the whole paper is bogus
Roy Spencer's paper on climate sensitivity

3. R.S. Knox and D.H. Douglass – The missing heat is not in the ocean.

Seriously, you have run out of people who work in climate filed and going to a bunch of phis

A 2007 paper by Douglass and coworkers questioned the reliability of 22 of the most commonly used global climate models analyzed by Benjamin D. Santer and used by the IPCC to predict accelerated warming in the troposphere.[3][4] The study had originally been submitted to Geophysical Research Letters the previous year, but was rejected in September 2006 on Santer's recommendation.[5] Santer and 17 co-authors later rebutted Douglass' paper.

Here are the more complex reasons why the whole paper is bogus
Douglass & Knox 2012 pre-bunked


Sorry I am only doing three... This took basic googling to debunk...
Is this the best you got...

This was all too easy, if time consuming.
Right give me just one paper....

You didn't debunk anything.

I think you need to relearn the English Language.

First Paper the Writer rescinded it...

Second one the peer review process was compromised and the main author has used falsified data and cherry picking in the past. i.e. not objective

Third One - They haven't even got relevant degrees and paper was rescinded...

I think you have no clue of the english language... This is how the scientific process works... Your top three papers have been discredited from authors who some have worked the evidence.

You do not have the objectivity to make such judgements and I doubt that all you did was go to some AGW sitge and took their stance on every issue and paper and did not bother trying to read anything that might defend the inclusion of these three papers and the other four.

You are a demonstrated partisan hack and I am not wasting my time with you.

 

[Sallow]

And it's a ridiculous assumption that someone "needs a warrant" to inspect a business open to the public.

The fourth amendment is a ridiculous assumption? Just like a liberal.

The fourth amendment doesn't cover businesses open to the public.

You'd know this if you read the amendment or ever owned a business.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And it's a ridiculous assumption that someone "needs a warrant" to inspect a business open to the public.

The fourth amendment is a ridiculous assumption? Just like a liberal.

The fourth amendment doesn't cover businesses open to the public.

You'd know this if you read the amendment or ever owned a business.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Wow, I have lived long enough to observe Swallow make a relevant counter-point.

God be praised I have lived so long!

BTW, why wouldn't 'effects' not also cover property and thus owned businesses as well? An open field is public enough it usually requires no warrant to search, but an enclosed business does not have such a privacy status for the owner? How so?

 

[SwimExpert]

The fourth amendment doesn't cover businesses open to the public.

Yes it does. Don't make me sig-line you.

 

[Sallow]

The fourth amendment doesn't cover businesses open to the public.

Yes it does. Don't make me sig-line you.

Pfft..

No it doesn't.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission


The government has pretty board and expansive powers when it comes to businesses.

I use to work for the NYSE. We had to keep accurate records which were audited by the SEC.

Man, do you really need to be schooled this much in real life?

 

[SwimExpert]

The fourth amendment doesn't cover businesses open to the public.

Yes it does. Don't make me sig-line you.

Pfft..

No it doesn't.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission


The government has pretty board and expansive powers when it comes to businesses.

I use to work for the NYSE. We had to keep accurate records which were audited by the SEC.

Man, do you really need to be schooled this much in real life?

Fail.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SWIMEXPERT SAID:

"You won't know if the A/C is on unless you do an inspection. And without a warrant, it's not going to happen."

Incorrect.

The Plain View doctrine clearly applies in such cases, providing an exception to the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement. (See e.g. Horton v. California)

A business' open door dispensing cool air is indeed readily apparent.

 

[SwimExpert]

SWIMEXPERT SAID:

"You won't know if the A/C is on unless you do an inspection. And without a warrant, it's not going to happen."

Incorrect.

The Plain View doctrine clearly applies in such cases, providing an exception to the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement. (See e.g. Horton v. California)

A business' open door dispensing cool air is indeed readily apparent.

Thermostat in clear view? Yeah, didn't think so.