Listen to this PodcastMore Science Talk
Podcast Transcription
Steve: Welcome to the Scientific American podcast, Science Talk, posted on January 16th, 2012. I'm Steve Mirsky. The National Center for Science Education is the country's top resource for teachers, parents, students and clergy when the teaching of evolution in public school classrooms is threatened by religiously motivated ideologues. But evolution is no longer the only science under threat in schools, which is why the NCSE announced today that they're branching out. I called Executive Director Eugenie Scott on January 13th to find out about their new initiative.
Steve: Dr. Scott, great to talk to you as always. I understand that you've decided to fight the war on two fronts.
Scott: Yeah, but it's not like we're bored with creationism, right. I mean, you know, it's not even as we're talking, it's not even two weeks into 2012, and we already have five creationism pieces, antievolution, pieces of legislation submitted. So it's not like we're bored, but duty calls, what can I say.
Steve: Well, we can come back to those and talk. I know that there have been a couple in Hampshire, but why don't we talk about what's this new front's going to be?
Scott: Well, as you mentioned, our expertise, for the last over 20 years or so, NCSE has helped teachers out at the grassroots level in their classroom problems or school board-level problems or state legislation. When problems have arisen over the teaching of evolution, we provide them with advice and information and help and support, so that they can defend the integrity of science and teach good science and teach evolution. And it's become apparent over the last few years that teachers are experiencing more and more problems over the teaching of global warming and other climate science topics. And now we're seeing more newspaper accounts, we're seeing more legislation that bundles evolution and climate change as so-called controversial issues. So we thought about this very carefully actually. We didn't really rush into it. We spent about a year asking other organizations, Are you hearing that teachers are having problems? Yes. Are you doing anything about it? No, we think you should, because you do a good job with evolution. And so we decided to take this on, and so as part of our climate change initiative, we have added a new climate scientist, Mark McCaffrey, to our staff. We've added a climate scientist to the board of directors of NCSE--we've added Peter Gleick from the Pacific Institute. And we are as we, I guess, we could say, open for business for any teachers or parents or school board members or people who are concerned about this issue, who would like some help in coping with an attack on another science, shall we say, and how it's taught in the classroom.
Steve: Can you talk a little bit about the kind of specific attacks that we've already seen related to climate change in education?
Scott: Yes. A lot of it, it seems to fall under the category of a teacher trying to teach the consensus view of science, which is that the planet is getting warmer, and people have a big contribution to this warming; which is, you know, pretty much accepted anywhere you go on the scientific community. But when they try to teach that, they get pushback from students. We've had reports of students who've gotten up and walked out of class; students have raised their hand and said, "Teacher, my dad says global warming is a hoax"; or we've had teachers that have experienced pushback from parents, complaining about materials in textbooks which accept matter-of-factly the planet is getting warmer, and parents will complain about that. We've also seen school board level policies that attempt to compromise the teaching of climate science. So, a lot of the same sorts of things that teachers, over the decades, have experienced with the teaching of evolution.
Steve: And what kind of services can you offer to anybody who does get in touch with you because they say they're having some issues at their particular institution?
Scott: Of course, every situation is different. But as an example of one bit of assistance that we provided to a teacher, there was a teacher--and this is not a public controversy, but I can, you know, describe the particulars without identifying it--a teacher was accused of bias by a parent because she taught straight science. And the parent demanded that the administration require the teacher to have a debate between a climate scientist and a global warming denier. And they called us, you know, the teacher's representative called us and said, "Can you offer some suggestions?" So, you know, what we suggested was that the science class should be the place for the presentation of standard science, the consensus view of science as scientists understand it. And if you want to debate policy issues, you know--should we have a tax on carbon? Or, you know, should individuals stop driving cars, you know? If you want to have a debate on the policy issues, that should be over in the social studies class. And obviously we believe that the science should inform the positions of that debate but those kinds of issues, which really are the sorts of things that the parent wanted debated, those kinds of things are extra to the basic science. I mean, the basic science tells us that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is contributing to an increase in warming, warming is happening, the human generation of CO2 is a component of that warming. And this is the sort of thing that should be presented without compromise to students in the classroom.
Steve: It cracks me up when I hear a lot of politicians say that CO2 is harmless, and I'll say, "Why don't you get in a room filled with it then?" I realize that's a different scientific mechanism, but it's always pretty funny to me. And then, of course, Speaker Boehner contended that CO2 was not a carcinogen, and nobody really said it was. But that's a whole different issue. What kind of things won't you be doing?
Scott: We won't be dealing with policy issues. We won't be dealing with the question, What should we do about global warming? Because, a) that's out of our expertise; we're not a policy institute. And b) it just is not something that plays a big role in the middle school and high school teaching of climate science. Teachers need to be able to teach unfettered, shall we say, what the basic science is and what we know about it and not be distracted by these political issues. And unfortunately, just as with evolution, it's not the science that is the problem, it's the implications, shall we say, of the science that are really more of a controversial issue.
Steve: The sources of pushback are very different between, there is some overlap, but there's a wide difference between who's against teaching evolution and who's against teaching climate science.
Scott: This is true. You will tend to find however, that the anti-evolutionists also include antiglobal warming as part of their concerns, but it's generally done from a religious, you know, standpoint: God would not let anything happen to his creation kind of thing. The major push against the teaching of global warming and other climate science topics does come more from people of particular political and economic ideologies. You tend to find it, well just as evolution is falsely portrayed as requiring atheism, so global warming is falsely portrayed as requiring a growth of big government; or it's anti-capitalist. You find a lot of libertarians who will argue that climate science isn't real; it's going to require us to impose upon American individualism, and stuff like that. So it's really frustrating for teachers to have to be pressed to compromise the teaching of basic science because of political or social factors here.
Steve: What's going on, I know we've talked in the past about problems that some astronomy teachers have had with pushback from parents or students because of the age-of-the-universe issue that some people don't accept. So, is there any thought to expanding it again into astronomy-cosmology?
Scott: Only in the sense that the topic of evolution does impinge upon so many different scientific disciplines. We're not going to go after the geocentrists next. (laughs) It's true there is a geocentric movement out there, but fortunately they're not influencing the science classroom. So, that is our focus, it's what are teachers facing in terms of what society considers a controversial issue, even if the scientific community doesn't.
Steve: That's really true. In case the term geocentric doesn't mean much to somebody listening, I've seen their brochures, there are groups who believe, despite the last 500 years that, the longer than that really, that the Earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around the Earth, as does everything else. And they would like that taught in science classes.
Scott: Yeah. Interesting, since we're on this little footnote anyway, some of the creationist organizations are although not, you know, promoting a strict, you know, Copernican kind of (laughs)--it's sort of a neo-geocentrism, as it were. It's again trying to make science conform with their interpretation of the Bible. And since the Bible does argue that the Earth is the center of God's creation, they have to somehow work that out. So there's one creationist who's actually worked relativity theory into kind of a neo-geocentrism, which is fascinating to me. He's arguing that the Earth really is the center of the universe, because after all the universe expands in all directions, and that it's actually still a young Earth because outside of kind of the immediate sphere around Earth, time is slowed down. But, so right here, right here in our own Earth, it is really only 6,000 years old, even though the universe may seem like it's billions of years old. It's just wonderful stuff, really.
Steve: That is great.
Scott: I love it.
Steve: That's great. Let's talk just briefly about those five evolution bills that are currently in state legislatures that you were talking about.
Scott: Well perhaps the zaniest one is in Indiana. That is just a straight up schools-should-be-teaching-creation-science bill. And our jaws dropped when we saw that because, you know, God in heaven, (laughs) creation science?
Steve: And also it's settled law that that is not legal.
Scott: And not exactly day before yesterday either , we're talking Edward v. Aguillard, 1987--this has been around for a while. You know, the Supreme Court has said, "No, creation science is religious advocacy, you can't present it in, you know, you can't advocate it in the science class." But the Indiana bill bears watching because it has a bunch of co-sponsors, number one; but also the proportion of religious conservatives and tea party people in the Indiana legislature is monumental. And crazy as it sounds, it just might pass. I mean, one of the proponents of this bill has been saying things like, "Well we don't care what the Supreme Court says. We're going to do this anyway, because we're on the right side of God and the law, and we're just doing what is proper. Maybe we'll become the model for other states." And, of course, this is nullification, I guess? (laughs) I mean, this is the idea that a state can just completely thumb its nose at a major branch of our whole checks and balances system. I mean, you can't just dismiss the judiciary system--this is madness. So, that's an extremely interesting bill and by the way, your listeners can go to N-C-S-E-.com and click on the news button at the top, and they can get all of this stuff, and all of the various bills that are proposed. Perhaps the most surprising bills are the two New Hampshire bills. And generally speaking, we get very few pieces of legislation and actually not very many calls at all from the northeastern part of the country. The religious tradition there tends to be much more moderate--it's Catholic and moderate Protestant--and so we just don't seem to have the problems as we have with more conservative Christianity. And so finding an anti-evolution bill in New Hampshire raises eyebrows, just for its location. But it has cropped up again--two bills that have just been introduced within a week of each other in Missouri, which, the most recent one, echoes the Louisiana Science Education Act, which is one of these academic freedom bills. And again, it's bundling evolution and global warming. And because, there have been a number of bills since 2008 modeled on this, using the same kind of wording as the Louisiana bill. We've seen them cropping up, you know, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee, Oklahoma, all kinds of places. But we think that maybe this bill is getting passed around because it did pass in Louisiana, and people believe that, "Well if it passed here, it could pass in my state as well." So, we're getting clones of this Louisiana bill cropping up, such as this one in Missouri. So, you know, we shall see. Funny things, not ha ha funny, but peculiar things happen in states with legislation during election years, and clearly this is an election year--2012.
Steve: And, of course, the last year of the Earth according to...
Scott: Again, once more the Earth is going to end.
Steve: Right. Well somebody should try teaching that in science class.
Scott: (laughs) Well, but here at NCSE we always have a cake and a little celebration on the end-of-the-world day and, you know, it's actually just a, sort of, office culture here where we're usually looking for an opportunity to have a cake and some celebrations. (laughs) So this just gives us one more.
Steve: Well, it's the last day of the world and you have the cake: Do you finish the cake or do you put some in the fridge for the next day?
Scott: (laughs) Well, generally speaking, cake disappears pretty faster in our office, but any leftovers are in the refrigerator, and miraculously enough, they're available for lunch the next day for anyone who might not have been in.
Steve: Fantastic. Well, good luck on this new front.
Scott: Thanks very much for helping us get the word out that this is a new initiative. And we hope that anyone listening to this, who hears in their community or sees a newspaper article or hears a comment from a teacher about problems involved in teaching global warming or evolution, please get in touch with us and help that teacher getting in touch with us.
Steve: And again they can get in touch through your Web site...
Scott: N-C-S-E.com
Steve: That's it for this episode. Go to http://www.ScientificAmerican.com for all your science news and check out Anna Kuchment's slide show on "The Secret Lives of Bats. Also if you're in New York City on Wednesday evening January 18th, join a lot of the Scientific American staff, along with researchers from the American Museum of Natural , at a tweetup at the museum. You have to be on Twitter, and you have to follow both Scientific American--our twitter name is @sciam S-C-I-A-M--and you have to follow the museum, which is @amnh A-M-N-H American Museum of Natural History. And at that point, you can register for the event, which is free. You can find sign-up info for the tweetup on our Web site, and when you follow SciAm on Twitter, you get a tweet every time a new article hits the Web site. For Science Talk, I'm Steve Mirsky. Thanks for clicking on us.
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add CommentSigh, you guys will keep up this inane denial until when?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClearly facts aren't enough to sway your opinions, so what will it take? I suppose a white, English speaking Jesus would have to swoop down on a cloud carried by little fat baby cherubs and whisper to you in orgasmic orgies of holiness that we're screwing up the planet... would that do it?
Or perhaps if the CEOs of a few major oil companies told you it was all right to change your mind, that would have equal weight... ?
Which of those two "gods" are you listening too when you dream up your denials?
Since the NCSE does not operate on grant money, she took $0. The OP is an example of the type of unscientific and conspiratorial thinking that the NCSE works toward eliminating.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisZero dollars in grant money, to answer your question. And, to answer a question you didn't ask though you clearly should have: Eugenie Scott is a woman. Way to gather basic facts before yammering on - no wonder you're a denialist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no equivalence between the acceptance of evolution and the global warming agenda. It seems likely that the earth is warming. It is less likely but still probable that the warming has, at the least, been accelerated by the activities of man. The real question is what, if anything, we should do about it. I seriously doubt that there is anything that we CAN do to substantively alter the gradient of global warming. The one aspect of the evolution/global warming relation that has validity is the fact that evolution vividly demostrates that the one inevitable fact of life on earth is change. Get used to it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe facts always win.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho respects people who won't except reality?
People who are just like them.
When you want to differentiate between anti-science and science, simply ask the person this: In your own personal opinion, what specific evidence would have to be provided to convince you that AGW theory is correct? A reasonable person, a person familiar with the science and an honest person can easily answer the question, even if it's to say "I don't know". An anti-science person, a person who doesn't know the science, a person with a political agenda or a dishonest person cannot answer that question. I've been asking it for years and I've never gotten an answer from a single person who denies the science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLikewise if they cite "climategate" or "fraud" ask them specifically which scientific papers or which version of which data set(s) were affected. They cannot answer that very simple question because there was no fraud and no science was affected. I guarantee they will change the subject, post haste.
That the climate is changing, and the degree to which human activity is responsible for it, are in no way influenced by what, if anything, we can do about it. One is a purely scientific question. The other is (at least to a large degree) a political and economic question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbout time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven the political "climate" in this country - the only way politicians will be convinced to start addressing the climate change issue is when business start pressing them to do something about it - because the costs to the bottom line will start being signifcant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink that won't happen - wrong - it already is. Large insurance companies are already factoring climate change into their risk assessments.
Regarding the commenters above who think this is all a scam - there are many scientists who have absolutely nothing to gain financially who accept the evidence. The physics is well understood, the data from the geologic record are well documented (look up PETM) and the mathematical models are robust - not perfect, but very good. By the way - if you don't like mathematical climate models - don't get on an airliner - they are designed using mathematical models that are only approximations of reality.
Eugenie Scott's integrity is beyond question. She has been fighting for the teaching of sound science and against intellectual fraud for decades on a shoestring budget, a battle that is never ending given the tenacity of creationists is all their guises. You go girl.
The problem with your statement is what you implication that we don't know is proof your AGW exists. The fact is we don't know enough about to climate to make claims like AGW exists or worse that the sole and only cause is CO2 production. I am not a denier of your science, you dont have any science to deny. You have computer models designed to "prove" your theory with plugged variables like what the "average global temperature should be(assuming this is even a number of any kind of relevance) and every "experiment" you have has NO possibility to be wrong. You cant have real science when your experiments have no possible outcome but proof of your belief. Evidence of this is a previous SA article on the "missing heat" of the last decade. The climate models predicted the last decade of heat increase in the atmosphere and the predictions was completely wrong. The Article then described how computer models were changed until they "found" the missing heat in the deep ocean, theoretically. In fact, a few explanations were discussed except one explanation. The heat never happened was simply ruled out because we all know it must have been there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow is the globe warming related to 30 years ago or some short period of time when we have reliable records? Sure, anyone can see christmas in most of america was green back in the late 80s. Was it caused by Human activity? Maybe. Was it caused by nature, maybe. Or both, more likely. I think anyone with a mind can see the climate has changed.
It is your cause that is the problem. this insane focus on CO2 as the only possible reason why the globe is warming is what is insane. We have 7 billion people on earth all producing massive amounts of heat. We dont need a global warming molecule like water vapor or methane or the miniscule amount of CO2, we produce enough extra heat on our own to potentially be warming the globe. Yet, you fools who "believe" CO2 is the problem will not look at it. From day one, some idiot scientist in the 1950s cherry picks data about CO2, declares it must be the cause of global warming to an audience of environmentalists who already believe human industry is evil personified and thats it, theory becomes truth the same way religious fanatics accept the words of a holy book.
It is really you warmist whackos who act like Jesus has come down and told you the globe is warming and it is because of us evil humans. What is worse is it is on you to prove it because I cant prove something is not happening. You have no real science to deny, only theory you believe on faith.
I have no problem with the scientific evidence about evolution being taught in schools. Neither do I have any problem with the scientific evidence of global warming being taught. I, myself readily acknowledge that the evidence that I can find for both is adequate and sufficient for me to accept both as true to the best of our knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat said, let me also point out that evidence that man is causing global warming in any major way is less forthcoming. When I ask those who have accepted this concept for evidence of it, I am first sent to sites that merely espouse the idea and revile and denigrate those who ask questions about it. Second, I'm told, "We have no responsibility to provide evidence - look it up for yourself."
Now this is just plain wrong. All science operates on the premise that those who make a claim are responsible for providing supporting evidence. I have asked these same people if they have seen such evidence. They claim that they have. When I ask where they found it, I can get no answer other than those same "believers" sites. True, I occasionally get sent to a site that offers proof of global warming but I have already plenty of proof of that. What I'm asking for is proof of AGW - man caused global warming - as opposed to natural warming.
I'd love to see some hard evidence of this claim and the results of it being peer reviewed by scientists not associated with those who offer this evidence. And no, folks, this DOES NOT make me a "denier"; just a properly scientifically skeptic. To accept these claims as true without this hard proof is tantamount to adopting a new religion because accepting something as true without adequate hard scientific evidence is basically what religion does. I have heard over and over again that this proof exists. Please tell me where to find it.
.
I've come to the conclusion that the climate debate has been based on the question on whether or not man's actions are going to destroy the planet. This is not the right question. Of course we're not going to destroy the planet no matter what we do. The appropriate question is whether our actions are creating a world in which we can no longer thrive. Survival isn't out of the question in any case, but at a severely reduced population, life expectancy, general health, and "wealth", for the vast majority of those who don't starve to death from displacement of rising oceans (This is already happening in the Maldives), loss of food sources from desertification (no crops), acid oceans (no fish), and lack of access to clean water due to retreating glaciers and exhausted aquifers. Eventually, man will adapt to these changes, but we'll never again achieve the heights of technology and culture we did. And so the world will not be destroyed, but will merely change. The question is, do we have a place in it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've come to the conclusion that the climate debate has been based on the question on whether or not man's actions are going to destroy the planet. This is not the right question. Of course we're not going to destroy the planet no matter what we do. The appropriate question is whether our actions are creating a world in which we can no longer thrive. Survival isn't out of the question in any case, but at a severely reduced population, life expectancy, general health, and "wealth", for the vast majority of those who don't starve to death from displacement of rising oceans (This is already happening in the Maldives), loss of food sources from desertification (no crops), acid oceans (no fish), and lack of access to clean water due to retreating glaciers and exhausted aquifers. Eventually, man will adapt to these changes, but we'll never again achieve the heights of technology and culture we did. And so the world will not be destroyed, but will merely change. The question is, do we have a place in it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was taught, via the media, that the Himalayan glaciers were retreating.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was later found that the analysis of the data was flawed and had been rushed through to publication because it fitted with the green/socialist agenda. The IPCC was forced to retract the original statement.
That does not make climate science wrong, but it should make both scientists and the public aware that climate science does not operate in a political vaccum.
Scientists must be *very* careful in this area and should not be naive enough to assume that everyone who backs climate science is doing so for the good of humanity.
Yes youre a denier.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You have no real science to deny, only theory you believe on faith."
Youre obviously an idiot who hasnt read any papers on the subject ever. We have planetary warming records, detailed records for almost the last million years and reasonable records going back further than that.
If you dont believe short-term trends lets try long term... between EVERY ice age is a warming period where species proliferation and evolution was accelerated. This warming period and quite recently if you like to a massive scale has seen an extinction phase, 30% of all life on the planet is considered/classified endangered or extinct.
@Scribbler Larry,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have asked for evidence here is partial list with the peer reviewed studies. Here are a few predictions and observations for attribution anthropogenic.
Since C02 is a greenhouse gas found in the troposphere it follows that the stratosphere above it will cool. This is also a falsification of the solar hypothesis. This is a prediction made by Manabe and Wetherald in 1967 and again by (1)Manabe and Wetherald
(2)Manabe and Stouffer in 1980.
This prediction is now observed.
Causes of atmospheric temperature change 1960–2000: A combined attribution analysis.
Geophysical Research Letters
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002GL016377.shtml
FTA:
"Our results strengthen the case for an anthropogenic influence on climate. Unlike previous studies we attribute observed decadal-mean temperature changes both to anthropogenic emissions, and changes in stratospheric volcanic aerosols. The temperature response to change in solar irradiance is also detected but with a lower confidence than the other forcings."
Then we have the prediction made way back in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius (3) was that nights would warm faster than days because when the surface cooled it would emit it in IR and the CO2 would capture it. This again has been observed:
Diurnal Temperature Range as an Index of Global Climate Change During the Twentieth Century. Geophysical Research Letters.
http://www.met.sjsu.edu/~wittaya/journals/diurnalTempRange.pdf
FTA:"Observed reductions in DTR over the last century are large and unlikely to be due to natural variability alone"
Arrhenius also predict back in 1896 that the Arctic would warm faster than other part of the globe because of its high albedo and dry air.
This too has been observed:
NASA-Goddard Institute of Space Studies:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.B.gif
Just go and take a look at graph for the high latitudes.
That is not even half of the evidence for Anthropogenic Climate Change.
1. Manabe, S. and R.T. Wetherald 1967. "Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity." Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 24, 241-259.
2. Manabe, S., and R.J. Stouffer. 1980. "Sensitivity of a global climate model to an increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere." Journal of Geophysical Research 85, 5529–5554.
3.Arhenius, S.A. 1896. "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground." Philosophical Magazine 41, 237-276.
I find it hypocritical that the same group of people who scream "CENSORSHIP!!" about their activities of copyright infringement and theft of intellectual property on the internet see no problem defending the IPCC for stifling discussion, hiding data and censoring issues questioning AGW.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInsanity. Sounds to me like the ECO-Occupy-Infringe movement needs adult supervision, as they want to have their cake and eat it too.
As long as you agree with their particular brand of neo-anarchist politics, everything is fine though.
Let's do a comparison between Skeptical beliefs and Warmist beliefs and see which aligns more closely with Creationism shall we?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWarmists believe in consensus,so do creationists. Skeptics ignore consensus, as do Evolutionists
Warmists believe that there is an all encompassing Gaia earth force. Creationists believe in a higher power.
Skeptics believe that your faith is you business but has nothing to do with science. Evolutionists say God is irrelevant.
Warmists believe that we should all stop questioning authority. Creationists believe that we should all quit questioning authority. Skeptics and evolutionists could care less about authority. It is scientifically irrelevant.
Warmists and Creationists want control of "the Word" as controlling the message controls people. Skeptics and Evolutionists say the only words that matters are "repeatability", "falsifiability".
Warmists and Creationists say "Trust us; we know"
Skeptics and Evolutionists say "Trust is irrelevant to science"
Warmists and Creationists say "This is for your own good". Skeptics and evolutionists say "Prove that you are correct"
Warmists and Creationist say "Here is our proof".
Skeptics and Evolutionists say "That isn't proof; there are many ways to explain those natural phenomena. Have you ever looked at ways in which you could prove yourself wrong, like Einstein did with his predictions?"
Warmists and Creationists say "We don't need to do that. This is an issue of morality."
And finally Skeptics and Evolutionists agree.... it is an issue of morality. Not Science. But then they ask "Whose morals?" And the Warmists and the Creationists both shout at the same time "MINE!!!!"
Sounds to me like Skeptics have a lot more in common with Evolutionists than The Eco-Anarchist movement does.
By the way Trent 1492, I see you're back. The "Occupy Mama's Couch" event must have ended. Did you back upstairs and raid her fridge before jumping on the computer again? That's a good lad.