Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. It Is A Cult, After All

 

Can’t believe I couldn’t find a trending post on the climate change craze. I’ll have to do this myself.

We all casually observe the organized CAGW1 scam. C’mon, all of us, right? It starts at elite (and corrupt, if I may repeat myself) levels of the academy. We know the predilection of governments for conclusions that require their involvement, and we understand the funding needs of the intermediate tier of researchers and journals. This much is normal corruption.

But the craze isn’t limited to people who can do sums and know how to run a computer model. The spectrum of adherents runs through commentators who talked to a scientist once, through TedX and mass media, to entertainers and other celebrities-by-virtue-of-celebrity, and includes our co-workers who think hurricanes are increasing. When a Big Lie becomes that successful, it’s a big problem.

I’ve long humorously called the whole edifice a cult (well, I thought it was funny), based on the eager will and commitment of the groundlings to believe the writ from on high. All the elements were there – an unprovable dogma, belief insulated from proof or question, a clear hierarchy of membership, I could go on. Especially about the corruption and where the money goes.

But now here’s one more proof that CAGW is an ersatz religion. What do the words “climate scientist” mean to you? Regardless whether one retains the smallest measure of responsible discrimination or one respects the climate research establishment, I think to most those words imply a person who uses the tools of mathematics and physics to understand, or at least propagandize, the climate.

At The Lid, a story by Jeff Dunetz related a recent use of those words by a garden-variety halfwit celebrity.2 The twit was honking on and on, how she was inspired by St. Greta the Unpleasant to do more and more for the only one issue that mattered and … ok, I will not subject you to that. If you want it, see below.3

When her straight girl fed her the line, the halfwit neatly backfilled that she’d always been on the good side saying “I’ve always been a climate scientist,” just in conversational flow, no special emphasis, but I heard the mission bell.

She didn’t mean she wore a white coat and counted tree rings under a positron microscope. She meant she was a believer, speaking as if she’d borrowed that construction from “Christian Scientist.” I was blown away with dismay.

I’ve never heard that particular perverted phrase before, “climate scientist” to mean “one who believes the delivered doctrine of climate science.” I’ve suspected that simpletons I’ve met thought of themselves as good and wise because of their adherence, but I’d have never suspected this. I might shake my head over scientism, the general tendency to admire and submit to a “scientific” authority. But this is more particular – they actually call themselves cultists Scientists now!

So what she really said was “I’ve always been a Climate Scientist.”

[Aside: I can’t stand those poor misused words, “scientific” and “scientist.” If I could strike two words from public discourse, so that people would have to say what they really mean, it would be those two.]

Dunetz’ article referenced and linked to this ABC News article. By the time I got there ABC News did not say exactly that the halfwit said “climate scientist.” I guess their article once did use those words but someone on their side who wasn’t as stupid as the rest fixed it to hide the decline. At any event, the halfwit herself says them in the video, which I’ve thoughtfully linked below.3

What do Climate Scientists wear when they canvass neighborhoods? I need to alert the neighborhood watch.

(1) Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Four lies for the price of one.

(2) It was Jane Fonda. I don’t want to get into her sick history, pro or con. Try to keep her out of the comments. I know, video and all. But she only matters as an exemplar of halfwit celebrity.

(3) You can watch Lady Jane of Hanoi’s video here: https://twitter.com/i/status/1182747671993315328, for now at least. Sorry, couldn’t help it and I slipped. My post anyway. [Edit: it’s at 1:49. She says “I’ve been a Climate Scientist for decades and decades.”]

Published in Culture
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 43 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    I’ll just provide these prophetic words from Eisenhower’s Farewell Address:

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    • #1
    • October 13, 2019, at 4:31 PM PST
    • 17 likes
  2. Western Chauvinist Member

    DonG (View Comment):

    I’ll just provide these prophetic words from Eisenhower’s Farewell Address:

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    Otherwise known as his “military industrial complex” speech. Hardly anyone even knows about this warning against politicized science. 

    Huh. Imagine that. /cynicism off

    • #2
    • October 13, 2019, at 4:55 PM PST
    • 8 likes
  3. Larry3435 Member

    Barfly: (1) Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Four lies for the price of one.

    Given the way the hysteria has ramped up recently (who would have even thought that was possible?) I think we need to change it to Cataclysmic Anthropogenic Global Warming. On the bright side, it does explain something about which I had been wondering: Why do these foolish children go into debt to the tune of six figures just to get a degree in an “academic subject” that will more or less guarantee that they will never hold an actual job? But, if they believe that the world is coming to an end in 10 years, the question becomes “Hey, why not?” Party like it’s 2029!

    • #3
    • October 13, 2019, at 5:10 PM PST
    • 7 likes
  4. Western Chauvinist Member

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Barfly: (1) Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Four lies for the price of one.

    Given the way the hysteria has ramped up recently (who would have even thought that was possible?) I think we need to change it to Cataclysmic Anthropogenic Global Warming. On the bright side, it does explain something about which I had been wondering: Why do these foolish children go into debt to the tune of six figures just to get a degree in an “academic subject” that will more or less guarantee that they will never hold an actual job? But, if they believe that the world is coming to an end in 10 years, the question becomes “Hey, why not?” Party like it’s 2029!

    Besides, if either the world ends or a Democrat gets elected (but, I repeat), they won’t have to pay off their student loans! Win, win?!

    • #4
    • October 13, 2019, at 5:17 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  5. Larry3435 Member

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Barfly: (1) Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Four lies for the price of one.

    Given the way the hysteria has ramped up recently (who would have even thought that was possible?) I think we need to change it to Cataclysmic Anthropogenic Global Warming. On the bright side, it does explain something about which I had been wondering: Why do these foolish children go into debt to the tune of six figures just to get a degree in an “academic subject” that will more or less guarantee that they will never hold an actual job? But, if they believe that the world is coming to an end in 10 years, the question becomes “Hey, why not?” Party like it’s 2029!

    Besides, if either the world ends or a Democrat gets elected (but, I repeat), they won’t have to pay off their student loans! Win, win?!

    Indeed! In fact, the Democrats provide proof that the faux “climate scientists” are right: The world may very well end in 10 years because of climate change, if the issue of climate change helps elect one of these Democrat socialist arses to the White House.

    • #5
    • October 13, 2019, at 6:17 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  6. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Otherwise known as his “military industrial complex” speech. Hardly anyone even knows about this warning against politicized science. 

    Indeed, a dangerous feedback loop exists where politics distorts science, which works to drive policy that further distorts the science and so on. The next thing you know we are spending billions of dollars a year on science to justify mis-spending trillions of dollars on alternative energy boondoggles. 

    • #6
    • October 13, 2019, at 9:05 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  7. KentForrester Coolidge

    Being a “climate scientist” with the proper opinions about the coming eco-global catastrophe means that it will be possible for you to get grants, stipends, book deals, articles in journals, etc.

    Being a “climate denier” means you will not be possible for you to get grants, etc.

    If you wanted a nice career with a good salary, what would you be, a climate catastrophe enthusiast or a climate denier?

    • #7
    • October 14, 2019, at 3:44 AM PST
    • 6 likes
  8. Dr. Bastiat Member

    Barfly: I guess their article once did use those words but someone on their side who wasn’t as stupid as the rest fixed it to hide the decline.

    Nicely done.

    • #8
    • October 14, 2019, at 4:17 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  9. Vectorman Thatcher

    Being a Climate Scientist is easy. It reminds me of the “get on the bandwagon” commercials for Oscar Mayer wieners and Dr. Pepper soda:

    • #9
    • October 14, 2019, at 5:23 AM PST
    • Like
  10. Kozak Member

    Barfly: So what she really said was “I’ve always been a Climate Scientist.”

    Huh. I guess she graduated from the Weathermen of the 60’s.

    • #10
    • October 14, 2019, at 5:57 AM PST
    • 7 likes
  11. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    We have been through these hysterias before. “Love Canal” was an early one. Then the “Ozone Hole.” Then “Nuclear Winter” was used for a time. “Global Cooling” followed and, in fact, may be beginning as the sun spot count is zero this year. There are other examples of scientific frauds. The most recent is the Theranos scandal that is the subject of a great new book.

    https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Blood-Secrets-Silicon-Startup-ebook/dp/B078VW3VM7/

    It’s called “Bad Blood” and the legal techniques used by these fraudsters resemble the present political atmosphere. David Boies, the Democrats super lawyer, was right in the middle of it.

    • #11
    • October 14, 2019, at 8:14 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  12. Western Chauvinist Member

    MichaelKennedy (View Comment):

    We have been through these hysterias before. “Love Canal” was an early one. Then the “Ozone Hole.” Then “Nuclear Winter” was used for a time. “Global Cooling” followed and, in fact, may be beginning as the sun spot count is zero this year. There are other examples of scientific frauds. The most recent is the Theranos scandal that is the subject of a great new book.

    https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Blood-Secrets-Silicon-Startup-ebook/dp/B078VW3VM7/

    It’s called “Bad Blood” and the legal techniques used by these fraudsters resemble the present political atmosphere. David Boies, the Democrats super lawyer, was right in the middle of it.

    The Maunder Minimum is no joke. But, I will laugh (darkly, humorlessly) when the CAGW cultists’ emaciated remains (“food deserts” doncha know?) are found in blocks of ice. 

    Nah, scratch that. Being on the Left means never having to say you’re sorry — and never having to personally suffer the consequences of your epic failures. Consequences are for little people.

    • #12
    • October 14, 2019, at 8:25 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  13. Henry Castaigne Member

    Anyone else here a lukewarmer? I’m with Dan Crenshaw on pushing for advances in nuclear and fracking technology.

    • #13
    • October 14, 2019, at 10:03 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  14. Western Chauvinist Member

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Anyone else here a lukewarmer? I’m with Dan Crenshaw on pushing for advances in nuclear and fracking technology.

    I have no problem with pursuing nuclear energy and fracking technology, but I don’t believe in the hazards of CO2 for even a New York minute. There’s simply zero evidence that man made CO2 contributes to extremes in weather. Anytime all the solutions to, in this case, a non-problem are more powerful government, I’m extremely skeptical. 

    So, no. I will not call myself a lukewarmer. There are some things we’ve observed that are likely to change the climate — quiescence of the sun thereby increasing cosmic radiation, which is known to produce more clouds… — but man made CO2 ain’t one of them. 

     

    • #14
    • October 14, 2019, at 10:18 AM PST
    • 6 likes
  15. Barfly Member
    Barfly Post author

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Anyone else here a lukewarmer? I’m with Dan Crenshaw on pushing for advances in nuclear and fracking technology.

    There has never been any credible measurement, or suite of them, that indicates with any usable level of certainty that human activity has ever had any effect on Earth’s climate.

    The theoretical conclusion that we do have such an effect is all the warmists have. That conclusion is based on test tube experiments that cannot be extrapolated to the general atmosphere. It’s such a tiny effect even in lab conditions that Al-Gore and Bowtie Boy couldn’t replicate Arrhenius and had to fake it.

    Cosmic rays, Milankovich cycles, and solar variation all outweigh the trivial greenhouse contribution of CO2 by some large number. That estimate is as close as anyone can get, since we cannot responsibly tease any contribution of CO2 out of the unmodified temperature data.

    There is a flawed thermodynamic argument that any addition of any GHG must raise the temperature. That’s naive at best. The atmosphere is a complex/chaotic system. 

    Global warming, AGW, CAGW, whatever – they’re all ersatz religion, a Big Lie con. What part of the con appeals to you?

    • #15
    • October 14, 2019, at 10:53 AM PST
    • 9 likes
  16. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    KentForrester (View Comment):

    Being a “climate scientist” with the proper opinions about the coming eco-global catastrophe means that you will be possible for you to get grants, stipends, book deals, articles in journals, etc.

    Being a “climate denier” means you will not be possible for you to get grants, etc.

    If you wanted a nice career with a good salary, what would you be, a climate catastrophe enthusiast or a climate denier?

    If you don’t have the “correct” opinion, then you won’t get your papers published. Without getting papers published and cited, you won’t get a professorship or a tenure or an office. Group think on campus is horrible. Professors are like cliquish school girls.

    • #16
    • October 14, 2019, at 10:59 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  17. Kozak Member

    Barfly (View Comment):
    There is a flawed thermodynamic argument that any addition of any GHG must raise the temperature. That’s naive at best. The atmosphere is a complex/chaotic system.

    During the Cambrian period atmospheric CO2 was 18X todays levels. And while the planet was a little warmer, there was no run away green house effect.

    • #17
    • October 14, 2019, at 11:04 AM PST
    • Like
  18. Barfly Member
    Barfly Post author

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):
    There is a flawed thermodynamic argument that any addition of any GHG must raise the temperature. That’s naive at best. The atmosphere is a complex/chaotic system.

    During the Cambrian period atmospheric CO2 was 18X todays levels. And while the planet was a little warmer, there was no run away green house effect.

    “Runaway greenhouse effect” is one of their more successful (and annoying) weaponized memes.

    I’m not sure of the relevant Ricochet etiquette, but I’m going to copy a comment I made on a related post by @aaronmiller titled Age of Hysteria.

    Barfly

    Bruce Caward (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy grudgingly (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Jager (View Comment):

    Since the 60s and 70s there have been stories saying we have 10 years to do something to avoid catastrophe. Since we are in our 5th end of the world , and yet the world has yet to end.

    More like 41.

    I remember as a kid being told that the Earth would end up like Venus.

    Yeah, me too. That was when they were all talking about “runaway greenhouse effect”. That at least made sense as a motivator – there’s a point of no return we will reach if we don’t change our ways (always roughly ten years). We will then unstoppably heat up until we are 900 degrees, like Venus.

    But that was quietly dropped when “runaway greenhouse effect” turned out to be another eye-roller. Now all they’ve got is “possible changing coastlines, and more great weather”. Not nearly as scary for everyone.

    I have to admire the way they insinuated “runaway” into the conversation. Usually when I hear “runaway” I think of something wildly dynamic, like a runaway truck.

    I don’t think I recall which science talker first put “runaway” and Venus together in the public conversation. It might have been Saint Sagan. I do recall thinking it to be an odd term to describe Venus’ climate, or even how it came to be so hot.

    Look, Venus has a recently if not currently vulcanized surface and rotates backwards. It sure looks to me like the poor thing got smacked by a big rock and became volcanic, planetwide. That lava belched a planetary amount of gas. The lighter gases get stripped by the occasional Carrington event.

    Or it looks like that to this layman, anyway. You’d think popular science would say as much, but no. They emphasize the carbon dioxide and insinuate, if not imply, that Venus got hot as a self-reinforcing greenhouse gas cycle. Which, I think, is manifestly false. 

    It’s way more likely the CO2 concentration went up all at once, not as a process-with-positive-feedback.

    The term “runaway” is an artful piece of propaganda. I’d like to pinpoint the first place that usage went public in regard to Venus. 

    • #18
    • October 14, 2019, at 11:33 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  19. Roderic Coolidge

    A proper statistical analysis of atmospheric data shows that there is no significant correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperature. That was the case back in 1990 or so when the first working group of what was to become the IPCC said that no carbon dioxide signal had emerged from the data and there was no telling when that would happen. Then the UN, stampeded by people like James Hansen, just took over the science and declared it to be so by fiat. From that day to this none have dared to point out that there’s still no clear signal from a carbon dioxide effect in the climate record. Scientists who don’t go along are banished. That’s all there is to it.

    On top of that there’s no evidence that the climate models they are using to make predictions about future climate are accurate. You may be familiar with such models without realizing it. They are the same type used for financial forecasts, and everyone knows that they will show you whatever you want them to just by tweeking the inputs a little. So you had the specter of the 30 best climate models all more or less in agreement with each other and then all wrong as the data came in, all predicting temperatures too high. And they can’t or won’t correct the models because to do so would be to admit that catastrophic global warming is not a thing.

    And finally, even the government climate scientists own models show that nothing that has been proposed that is remotely feasible in political and fiscal terms will have any significant effect on the climate. Nothing short of destroying the economy of the whole world will do that, and the Chinese and the Indian peoples are not willing to go that route even if we are here in the US.

    There actually is a way to got to zero carbon emissions in a relatively short time, and that’s to go all nuclear. I count that as infeasible politically for all the usual reasons.

     

    • #19
    • October 14, 2019, at 12:25 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  20. Western Chauvinist Member

    Roderic Fabian (View Comment):
    There actually is a way to got to zero carbon emissions in a relatively short time, and that’s to go all nuclear. I count that as infeasible politically for all the usual reasons.

    I dunno, I think you have to off all the CO2 exhalers, too. Go full Thanos. Of course, then the plants starve and you have a dead planet, but whatev. 

    • #20
    • October 14, 2019, at 1:14 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  21. Barfly Member
    Barfly Post author

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Roderic Fabian (View Comment):
    There actually is a way to got to zero carbon emissions in a relatively short time, and that’s to go all nuclear. I count that as infeasible politically for all the usual reasons.

    I dunno, I think you have to off all the CO2 exhalers, too. Go full Thanos. Of course, then the plants starve and you have a dead planet, but whatev.

    That’s right. If we want zero carbon footprint, we have to stop using carbon. Forget grilling, we don’t even get a cold veggie patty.

    Yeah, that’s hyperbole. But tell me, anybody, where exactly they’ll stop? Do I get 30 seconds in the microwave as long as my social credit is ok?

    • #21
    • October 14, 2019, at 1:32 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  22. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
     I’m with Dan Crenshaw on pushing for advances in nuclear and fracking technology.

    Lizzie Warren is going to take care of that. The KGB had no idea how long their anti-nuclear hysteria op would last. Greatest propaganda coup of all time; except it did not prevent Reagan from installing the medium range missiles in Europe. That was the purpose of the KGB op.

    • #22
    • October 14, 2019, at 1:34 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  23. MichaelKennedy Coolidge

    Judith Curry has been driven out of academia by the hysterics.

    https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/23/early-20th-century-global-warming/

    The warming that occurred early in the 20th century was probably the end of the warming after the Little Ice Age. Then it stopped.

    Too complicated for me. Especially with all the “adjustments.”

    • #23
    • October 14, 2019, at 1:42 PM PST
    • 1 like
  24. Bill Nelson Member

    DonG (View Comment):

    I’ll just provide these prophetic words from Eisenhower’s Farewell Address:

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    So this address has a lot in it. Be careful not to read too much into it. It is best known for its warning about the military-industrial complex.

     

    • #24
    • October 14, 2019, at 2:08 PM PST
    • Like
  25. Barfly Member
    Barfly Post author

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):

    DonG (View Comment):

    I’ll just provide these prophetic words from Eisenhower’s Farewell Address:

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    So this address has a lot in it. Be careful not to read too much into it. It is best known for its warning about the military-industrial complex.

     

    Or perhaps the one warning takes first place in public memory over the other because it was selectively repeated by the academic elite.

    • #25
    • October 14, 2019, at 2:13 PM PST
    • 1 like
  26. Franco Member
     Jane Fonda looks though the scope of an anti-aircraft gun during her tour of the North Vietnamese capital. She arrived July 8 at the invitation of the Vietnam Committee for Solidarity with the American People.

    That wasn’t an ordinary scope. That was also a climate change detector. 

    It seems so long ago, but remember she married the founder of CNN Ted Turner. Some things never change….

    • #26
    • October 14, 2019, at 3:49 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  27. Barfly Member
    Barfly Post author

    Mods, thank you for the typesetting.

    • #27
    • October 14, 2019, at 4:14 PM PST
    • Like
  28. Barfly Member
    Barfly Post author

    But hacking off half of St. Greta’s honorific is not cool. I object, and I say it’s on you to defend your censorship.

    • #28
    • October 14, 2019, at 4:18 PM PST
    • Like
  29. Barfly Member
    Barfly Post author

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):
    There is a flawed thermodynamic argument that any addition of any GHG must raise the temperature. That’s naive at best. The atmosphere is a complex/chaotic system.

    During the Cambrian period atmospheric CO2 was 18X todays levels. And while the planet was a little warmer, there was no run away green house effect.

    And the CO2 peaks lagged the temperature trend.

    • #29
    • October 14, 2019, at 4:37 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  30. Dr. Bastiat Member

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):
    There is a flawed thermodynamic argument that any addition of any GHG must raise the temperature. That’s naive at best. The atmosphere is a complex/chaotic system.

    During the Cambrian period atmospheric CO2 was 18X todays levels. And while the planet was a little warmer, there was no run away green house effect.

    And the CO2 peaks lagged the temperature trend.

    Very true. Very important point.

    Very unlikely to find this mentioned anywhere.

    • #30
    • October 14, 2019, at 4:49 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  1. 1
  2. 2