The Grist Grifters, Part II

Here I go through a short section, contradictory evidence. I call it short simply because they take a lot of time to present allegorical evidence. Let’s take a look.

1. It’s cold today in ‘Wagga Wagga‘. It was way colder than normal today in Wagga Wagga, proof that there is no global warming. Coby rightly states “Does this even deserve an answer…? And he’s right, it doesn’t. Simply because it’s below average in Location A, doesn’t mean that the temperature as a whole is getting colder, or that there is no average temperature increase.

But that didn’t stop Global Warming maven Laurie David from saying something like it.

2. Antarctic ice is growing. The Antarctic ice sheets are actually growing, which wouldn’t be happening if global warming were real. Coby state the following:

First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water.

Given that this is done many, many times with glacier pictures from Kilimanjaro, or South America, or Alaska to support a global warming argument shows a “we can do it, but you can’t do it” type of mentality. I agree that localized phenomena cannot be solely attributive to a global trend.

However, the fact the central ice sheets are thickening in Greenland and Antarctica while the exteriors melt is interesting, and, as Coby states, not contradictory to global warming theory. As there is more precipitation, there should also be thickening at the center of the ice sheet.

BUT.. and it’s a big but– the global warming disaster oracles are stating that droughts are going to result, as well as flood, severe weather, disasters, etc. So, what gives? What’s going to happen, and what big variable is being ignored?

I’ll tell you– clouds. The biggest generator of terrestrial reflectivity is cloud cover. Clouds are white and as we all know white surfaces have a high reflectivity. Another reflective source is ice, but given that the biggest ice masses are at the poles, the amount of light reflected by the icy regions pales in comparison to the surface area of clouds outside of the arctic and antarctic circles. Because cloud cover is so variable, it’s hard to put into modelling programs, but I will tell you this– greater water content in the air will lead to more clouds, especially with the increase in pollution from a larger population.

Another dirty little secret is that warmer planet means that there is more water vapor in the atmosphere. Water is a tricky chemical– it regulates temperature by absorbing heat and reflecting light (clouds, ice). What’s more, the warmer the planet, the wetter the planet and the greater the amount of CO2 scrubbed from the atmosphere by rain.

All of these influences act like buffers– even though there’s an increase in CO2 concentration, there are corresponding increases in the amounts of water vapor, clouds, and factors that decrease CO2 longevity in the atmosphere. Additionally, increases in water vapor increase the “greenhouse effect”, but they also blunt any impact of CO2, which will in turn regulate and CO2 mediate increase in temperature.

3. The satellites show cooling in the tropics. Satellite readings, which are much more accurate, show that the earth is in fact cooling. Of course, Coby throws in a snarky comment:

I wonder how long before this one stops coming up?

But the reality is it was a legitimate argument. Satellites sent into orbit to track average temperatures of the tropics kept reporting a decline in surface temperatures while other temperatures were not. It’s a simple case of satellite error– the data reported from the satellites were actually records at night because of an error in programming data collection times. As a result, temperatures recorded were significantly lower, and, low an behold, corrections do indeed show a warming (however, it is still a modest warming.)

What really surprises me about the Coby’s post here is that he starts off by attacking satellite measurements instead of just reporting the errors in the data processing.

The complications arise from many things, including decay of the satellite orbits, splicing together and calibrating records from different instruments, trying to separate the signals by the layer of atmosphere they originate from, etc. It is a little ironic that the same people who distrust the surface record so happily embrace this even-more-convoluted exercise in data processing!

Even stranger, he then goes on to lean on those satellite measurements as the gospel truth.

In short, this long-running debate turned out to be a great validation of the models and a real death blow to the “earth is not warming” crowd.

My problem here is not with the satellite data, which has confirmed what we already know (the Earth is warming). My problem is with the assault on technology if it says what you don’t want it to say and then embrace the very same technology if it says what you want it to say.

I’m sure George Tenet is getting lauds from his latest book attacking the Bu$$hitler, but he was vilified in 2002 for calling the Iraq data a “slam dunk”. It’s the same issue. Good if he supports us, bad if he’s against us.

4. What about mid-century cooling? There was global cooling in the ’40s, ’50s, and ’60s, even while human greenhouse-gas emissions were rising. Clearly, temperature is not being driven by CO2.

Sulfates are the prime culprit in the mid-century cooling. It is believed that man-made pollutants in the post-WWII economic boom contributed to the global cooling, and that government restrictions on those emissions resulted in a corresponding drop in temperature.

This opens an intriguing possibility: use sulfates as a counter to global warming.

Just don’t mind the acid rain.

5. Global warming stopped in 1998. Global temperatures have been trending down since 1998. Global warming is over. To use 1998 as a baseline is a little deceiving, mainly because it was such an anomalously hot year that it still dwarfs the temperature anomalies we’re currently seeing. But statistics says to beware outliers.

What is interesting is that 1998 was hot– very hot– and the world barely batted an eye at it. Current global averages are below what was seen in 1998– and that’s 10 years later. Why is this a problem for the AGW folks? They claim it’s not, but there’s a trend line that needs to be seen:

Notice that the anomaly heats for the past few years are pretty much the same and that the trend line seems to be “cresting”. Now that data is from 2005, and 2006 was reported as the “fifth warmest year on record”. Now, considering #2 was 2005, #3 was 2003, and #2 was 2002, having a 2006 at #5 seems to trend a drop in temperature anomaly. But that’s just data analysis. It is entirely possible 2006 is just lower on average than the other years. But it’s dangerous to take from 1990 on and ride that curve to an anomaly of +10 degrees and it screams of “chicken little”.

1998 is an outlier, but the 2000 years seem to have hit a maximum. Given that CO2 values are still rising as the Bu$$$hitler thumbs his nose at “consensus”, it would seem contraindicatory that the global average temperature should average out.

6. But the glaciers are not melting! Sure, some glaciers are melting. But if you look at the studies, most of those for which we have data are growing. Coby is now about to dazzle you with a little shell game. In statistics we call these “averages”. Let me relate a little story.

A man stands in a pot of boiling water, while his head is encased in ice. When asked how he felt, temperature-wise, he said “I feel about average.”

Averages are a tricky thing, and you have to understand a little bit of recent history in order to understand something about glaciers.

We were in a “Little Ice Age” from about 1050 to 1850, when the world began to warm up (with our help, some suggest). Glacier National Park had many glaciers. Glaciers blocked lakes in Alaska. Everywhere there were glaciers. But as the world warmed, the strangest thing happened– the glaciers began to recede!

Coby brings out the “global glacier mass balance” graph, a graph that shows overall mass in glacier changes, on average, around the globe. He suggests “sure there are some glaciers growing”, but he discards that data set and never bothers to ask “why”? Bear in mind that the glacier data set is also anomalous because it takes into effect other things besides heat on ice. Coby himself warns us that we should avoid using data from regional environments because the climate effects on those regional environments are affected by local climate just as much as global climate. (see point 1 above)

But here he points to the glacial mass loss as concrete evidence of warming!

Again, it’s a case of “I can use that evidence, you cannot”. Or, as Grist likes to say, the “balance of evidence.”

7. Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Sure, sea ice is shrinking in the Arctic, but it is growing in the Antarctic. Sounds like natural fluctuations that balance out in the end. Here we have a real thorn in the AGW theory. Antarctica continually defies predictions of global warming, probably due to its isolated nature. Coby states that we should see a greater influence on planetary temperatures in the north- and that makes sense, as there is more land mass and more arid climes in the north which would support the AGW theory. But the Southern Hemisphere doesn’t exhibit much warming, and the arid wastes of Antarctica are surely one locale that will show warming.

But it doesn’t. And the ice is thickening and growing in Antarctica.

One big, scary event was the ice shelf collapse. Coby brings it up in passing, coyly suggesting it was an event precipitated by warming. Unfortunately for him, ice sheets of that size regularly collapse under their own weight. Was a warmer current partially to blame? Possibly, but the ice shelf was quite big when it collapsed.

But again, we have to weigh the balance of evidence. And here is a little game the AGW supporters like to play– they equate global warming and anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming.

All of the “global warming” predictors that have everything “falling in line” do happen under warming conditions. However, the sourceof the warming is irrelevant in these cases. If the planet gets warmer, the north should heat faster than the south because of the ratios of land mass.

The most disturbing angle of the GW model is that it mustbe man that accounts for the warming. While I will concede a small portion of the warming is due to an increase in carbon dioxide, AGW proponents completely discard any impact the sun may play on the warming. As a skeptic I do not argue that the world is warming. I do, however, discount the idea that CO2 is only (or primary) culprit. I make a distinction between AGW and GW because the source of plain ol‘ global warming is likely to be multiple inputs, most notably of which would be the sun.

8 & 9. Sea level in the arctic is falling. Some sites show cooling. As it’s very late and I’m about to pass out, I will simply say that 8 is mostly dependent upon geological compressions. (Interesting that Coby posts a graph saying “the seas are rising!” then goes on to say “We really don’t know what’s causing the sea level rise, but it doesn’t mean AGW isn’t happening!”) For 9, again, local climate has an impact on temperature changes.

You’ll notice that I did skip one bullet point, “Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high.” I did this on purpose, because it really deserves a detailed examination of the chemistry behind CO2, water, and global warming.

Until then, goodnight.

Blog Lite

Sorry for the lack of posting the past few days. I knew I would be swamped Wednesday, but the swampage has overflowed through Thursday and Friday and it’s gearing up to wreck my weekend. But I have a few spare moments today to do a couple of follow up posts.

In general, I will be slowing down as we reach the end of the semester (and I get my last reports handed in, which is about 160 total reports that need graded before semester’s end). What can I say? I’m not the Instapundit.

Never Forget the Idiocy - Wall of Shame

I’ve been thinking about Harry Reid and I’m just getting angrier and angrier thinking about it. So, here’s my “Don’t Forget” post which I’m going to sticky to the top of this blog for a while. I’ll make additions to it. So don’t think I haven’t updated the post. I just don’t want you to forget what Sen. Harry Reid said. I’m also including Sen. Joe Biden, who had some amazing things to say today.Harry Reid emboldens the enemy. Joe Biden blames all of the bad things that have happened in the past 20 years on Republicans.

I’ll add more to this Wall of Shame as time goes on.

Edit: Motivational posters from Are We Lumberjacks(h/t Michelle Malkin). Dutifully posted all over DNC national HQ.

I find the failure post especially fitting, mainly because it was a colossal Republican failure that led to a shift to Democratic majorities.

Sheryl Crow: It was a joke!

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Or was it?

Here’s her famous TP blog:

Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don’t want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. When presenting this idea to my younger brother, whose judgment I trust implicitly, he proposed taking it one step further. I believe his quote was, “how bout just washing the one square out.”

And here’s the next two paragraphs. Are these jokes too?

I also like the idea of not using paper napkins, which happen to be made from virgin wood and represent the height of wastefulness. I have designed a clothing line that has what’s called a “dining sleeve.” The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another “dining sleeve,” after usage. The design will offer the “diner” the convenience of wiping his mouth on his sleeve rather than throwing out yet another barely used paper product. I think this idea could also translate quite well to those suffering with an annoying head cold.

This next idea I have been saving but I will share it with you if you promise not to steal it. It is my latest, very exciting idea for creating incentive for us all to minimize our own personal carbon footprints. It’s a reality show. (I feel pretty certain NO ONE has thought of this yet!). Here is the premise: the contest consists of 10 people who are competing for the top spot as the person who lives the “greenest” life. This will be reflected in the contestant’s home, his business, and his own personal living style. The winner of this challenging, prestigious, contest would receive what??…. a recording contract!!!!!

Are all of these jokes? I don’t see a “Just Kidding!” or a “If they weren’t so absurd…” or some kind of joke indicator. And she’d have been 18 days late for April Fools.

In fact, she didn’t say the “dining napkin” was a joke, or the reality show. So, were they all the same joke, or was it just the TP thing? Or are you just trying to save face because you decided to put ideas out there that were so absurd they were laughed at entirely, so you thought, “Yeah, it’s a joke– I’m really not that stupid. I’m a climatologist!”

Some fun with TP

Reader TJ sends in some photoshops of TP fun:

But too many on your rear makes Sheryl Crow appear.

A man, his gun, his roll– must be Texas.
TJ says: “When toilet paper is outlawed, only outlaws will have TP!”

And of course, I had to add my own:

What do you mean I only get one square? I am the Great Cornholio!

The Grist Grifters Part 1

There’s a “global warming awareness” site on the internet called grist.org. Big hitters in the global warming arena such as Adam Browning, founder of a non-profit solar consortium, Adam Stein, co-founder of a website/organization, Amanda Griscom Little, who… writes for grist, Andrew Sharpless, co-founder of Oceana (another non-profit), and Anna Fahey, communications strategist. Of course while people like these are easy to deride, there are actual scientists who post to Grist, and they are Andrew Dessler and Michael Tobis, both Ph.D. holders, Andrew in atmospheric science and Tobis in oceanography. I give a reluctant nod to the graduate students in their midst, Yolanda Crous, Stephanie Ogburn, Kif Schuer, and Julia Olmstead. (A reluctant nod because I’ve known many graduate students and there are those who know what they are doing, those that don’t know what they are doing, and those who pretend to know what they are doing. Additionally, two of these graduate students are in agriculture, and the other two don’t say what they’re studying, although they are at a Environmental Institute.)

The other 40 or so contributors are all artists, directors of non-profit organizations, web editors, writers, or some other non-science related field.

That’s not to say these people couldn’t know what they are talking about. However, they have no training in the field. That, of course, doesn’t stop them from making fun of people like Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen, two actual climatologists.

On this site, there’s the “gristmill” which is supposed to grind up the “skeptic” arguments and churn them out. It’s like Ann Coulter’s “How to Argue with a Liberal”, except it’s the reverse, green, and smells like patchouli oil.

The topics are broken down and well organized (and it should be, given the number of web developers working there) so when you hear a skeptic say something, you can run to the website and find the proper rebuttal.

Except that they aren’t so much rebuttals as vagaries and misinformation. In the next few days, I’ll provide a detailed response to the sections in the Skeptics Gristmill and explain if the claim is correct, incorrect, or just plain bogus.

We’ll start with the list in general. It starts with the There’s Nothing Happening and gives some “standard” arguments from “those in denail”.

• 1. There is no evidence.
• 2. One record year is not global warming.
• 3. The temperature record is simply unreliable.
• 4. One hundred years is not enough
• 5. Glaciers have always grown and receeded.
• 6. Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect.
• 7. Mauna Loa is a volcano.
• 8. Scientists aren’t even sure.

There are the bullets. Now let’s discuss them.

1. There is no evidence. Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming. Most skeptics will agree that the world is warming, on average. They are disputing the cause, not the effect.

2. One record year is not global warming. So 2005 was a record year. Records are set all the time. One really warm year is not global warming. Taking single data points and drawing conclusions from them is poor form. Taking a small set of data points (the past 30 years) and running around like Chicken Little isn’t much better.

It is important to recognize that our ability to measure temperature directly (with a thermometer) dates back to, well, the invention of the thermometer (around 1714). To detect temperatures beyond that, we have to figure out some other way of determining temperature, and that can be radioisotope absorbence of various items. While this is useful, it can only provide a rough estimate of global temperature because the comparisons are to other eras. For example, if in 1932, 1958, and 1964, the global temperature was X, the emissions of pollen in antarctic ice cores would have count Y. So, getting a core from 1015 and seeing the count as Y, the extrapolation is that the temperature in 1015 was X.

It’s an oversimplification on my part, but it illustrates how temperatures from the past are guessed at, and that leads to the next statement.

3. The temperature record is simply unreliable. The surface temperature record is full of assumptions, corrections, differing equipment and station settings, changing technology, varying altitudes, and more. It is not possible to claim we know what the “global average temperature” is, much less determine any trend. The IPCC graphs only say what the scientists want them to say.

Grist software engineer Coby Beck states the following:

There is actually some truth to the part about the difficulties; scientists have overcome many of them in turning the hundreds of thousands of measurements taken in many different ways and over a span of more than a dozen decades into a single globally averaged trend.

Now, be careful here because there’s a bait and switch. What is the bait? The skeptic warns about the unreliability of the temperature record going back before 1750. Coby spends his time here debunking that the past 100 years are unreliable, when they are quite reliable. He’s avoiding answering the real question and is instead dressing his answer as though all of the temperature record is behind him.

4. One hundred years is not enough. One hundred and some years of global surface temperatures is not long enough to draw any conclusions from or worry about anyway. Again it’s not something I hear from the skeptics that often. What I do hear is how the current 100 years compare to other times in our history.

Strangely, the information on that page actually contradicts the idea that this is the hottest time on our planet ever, which would have easily been explained had they hired some scientists to vet their data (so these graphs could conveniently be hidden).

Here are the two most curious that Grist has posted:

Notice that in the Holocene temperature average, it looks like (on the blue line) that the temperature variations matched or surpassed our current global temperature. Now look at the Volstock graph just below it. Anyone with scientific training should be able to look at the bottom graph and determine that there is a regular pattern of hot and cold on the planet, and it looks as though we should be in a hot period. Certainly would explain the global temperatures.

What is also clear is that the variability here is certainly caused by some external factor that goes through prolonged cycles. Every 100,000 years or so there’s a temperature spike that follows a prolonged cool period. It looks like we’re in for a “spike”, or we were in the middle of a spike when the Industrial Revolution rolled around.

5. Glaciers have always grown and receded. A few glaciers receding today is not proof of global warming. Glaciers have grown and receded differently in many times and places. It should be noted that glaciers are a localized effect. For example, Kilamanjaro’s glaciers are vanishing because of a lack of moisture, not because of a drastic change in temperature.

Coby contradicts himself here:

Firstly, it is more than “a few glaciers” that are receding; it is a pervasive, sustained, and accelerating global trend.

Then:

But no one claims that melting glaciers are proof of global warming.

Then why mislead?

6. Global Warming is due to the Heat Island Effect. The apparent rise of global average temperatures is actually an illusion due to the urbanization of land around weather stations, the Urban Heat Island effect. My response– you’re a moron if you think this is true. The UBIs cannot provide the energy necessary to heat a globe. They have their effect on local climate, but the impact on global climate is minor at best.

But, this is an important bit, and I’ll get to it later, because the flip side of the argument, the GW Truthers, use the same reasoning to say GW is happening.

7. Mauna Loa is a volcano! CO2 levels are recorded on top of Mauna Loa … a volcano! No wonder the levels are so high. If there was a sequestering problem, it would show up in comparison to other CO2 recordings from non-volcanic sources.

8. The scientists don’t even know if the world is warming! Even the scientists don’t know that the climate is changing more than normal and if it’s our fault or not. If you read what they write it is full of “probably,” “likely,” “evidence of” and all kinds of qualifiers. If they don’t know for sure, why should we worry yet?

Probability is the language of science. There is no proof; there are no absolute certainties. Scientists are always aware that new data may overturn old theories and that human knowledge is constantly evolving. Consequently, it is viewed as unjustifiable hubris to ever claim one’s findings as unassailable.

Given that climate is variable, and those variables haven’t been clearly categorized, and that the direct temperature record is very short, there’s very little that’s “highly likely” in any current observations. In addition, models which predict climate status up to the year 2100 are making many assumptions and are highly unreliable. Such graphs could have been constructed in 1920 but would have run into a problem in the little cooling zone we had in the 50’s and 60’s.

I also take exception to the idea that probability is the “language of science”. Science is an expression of ideas which are experimentally tested and refined and prove resistant to falsifiability.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 is going up. So is the temperature. There’s the science, right?

Mmm, not really. While all the statements are true, it has yet to be shown that there is a correlation between them all. I will say that an increase in CO2 concentrations should give a corresponding increase in temperature, but the wide changes in temperature predicted by the IPCC are just silly, and the biggest objection I have comes from the misperception of a global average temperature.

Take the man who stands in a bucket of boiling water with a block of ice on his head and ask him how he feels on average, and he’ll say his average temperature is room temperature.

It’s the same concept with GW. The biggest temperature changes come from cold, dry areas and temperature anomalies during the winter. Average these in with tropical and summertime temperatures and you’ll seen an overall increase in temperature, even though the tropical and summertime temperatures do not change.

In addition, as I’ve stated before on this blog, the amount of energy required in places like Siberia (where the temperature change is significant) to heat the entire rest of the planet is enormous. Don’t forget that even trapped heat diffuses back into space. In addition, given that CO2 levels are constant and global, we should see corresponding temperature spikes, but we don’t. Instead we see large anomalies which throw off the average but mask the true nature of the warming, which has to do with other factors than CO2 concentration.

I’ll have more on this on Thursday.

Still banned

Still banished from the PuffingTons Host. Lord knows why. And, I’ve detected a change in their commenting policy. The following is new:

• We have created a system where trusted, regular commenters will be able to post without this delay. However, un-trusted and new commenters will still experience a delay while their comments are moderated.

Untrusted? You mean conservatives, of course!

But Nethicus1 is alive and kicking over at the PuffingTons Host.

The Laurie David/Shery Crow/Karl Rove flap is up on the front page, and there are 529 comments. Mine? Discarded. So the Uberliberals over at Puffingtons Host are so concerned with free speech that they selectively censor what they don’t want to read.

Where did I hear about that happening recently? Hmmm….

Thank You Sheryl Crow

Post #600 on my blog was about Sheryl Crow and her desire to regulate restroom frugality. Strangely enough, the Puffingtons Host didn’t want post my comments on the Laurie David/Sheryl Crow tour.

As a lark, I sent it to AP at Hot Air. As it was Friday, and Friday’s a good day at Hot Air for silly stuff, it was picked up. I was happy. It was the most traffic this site has ever seen.

Then it kinda went nuts. Everyone was picking up on the story. Even Malkin linked to it (although she did link to Hot Air and not me. Where’s the love?)

And now it’s really gone too far…

Drudge doesn’t link to blogs (and I understand why– he frequently shuts down smaller servers with “Drudgelanches”, so he does it to keep the flow of information going, not because he’s a blog snob). But he did link to the Washington Post diary of the Crow/David bus tour (and to a BBC story as well).

So there it is. My big break into fame. All because Sheryl Crow doesn’t want to wipe her ass.

Oh, and the other 599 posts on here are really great stuff. You should read all of that, too.

Big Gas in Russia

In this case, railing against Big Petroleum in Russia may be worthwhile:

At their first meeting with journalists since taking over Russia’s largest independent radio news network, the managers had startling news of their own: from now on, they said, at least 50 percent of the reports about Russia must be “positive.”

In addition, opposition leaders could not be mentioned on the air and the United States was to be portrayed as an enemy, journalists employed by the network, Russian News Service, say they were told by the new managers, who are allies of the Kremlin.

How would they know what constituted positive news?

“When we talk of death, violence or poverty, for example, this is not positive,” said one editor at the station who did not want to be identified for fear of retribution. “If the stock market is up, that is positive. The weather can also be positive.”

In a darkening media landscape, radio news had been a rare bright spot. Now, the implementation of the “50 percent positive” rule at the Russian News Service leaves an increasingly small number of news outlets that are not managed by the Kremlin, directly or through the state national gas company, Gazprom, a major owner of media assets.

The three national television networks are already state controlled, though small-circulation newspapers generally remain independent.

Putin knows that economic power is far more potent in the 21st Century than military power, especially when it’s competing with China for those resources. Putin figures if he has Europe over a barrel, so speak, they’ll be able to exercise a great deal of local influence.

But when the US comes out against your pet petroleum project (Gazprom) and its attempt to consolidate local energy sources, you need to silence them. How do you do that? Control the media and paint the US as an enemy.

Anyone concerned yet?

Karl Rove Reads This Blog

Laurie David and Sheryl Crow accosted Karl Rove at the White House Correspondents Dinner, according to their latest blog entry. KKKarl wasn’t too receptive to their Global Warming overtures and tried to leave. That’s when this happened:

In his attempt to dismiss us, Mr. Rove turned to head toward his table, but as soon as he did so, Sheryl reached out to touch his arm. Karl swung around and spat, “Don’t touch me.” How hardened and removed from reality must a person be to refuse to be touched by Sheryl Crow?

He was just worried about Sheryl getting dirty fingers on his expensive suit.