Tweet
Another one of my comments related to global warming just went into “awaiting moderation” status. Last time that happened, it was still there, after 2 days. AFAIK, it never had that status changed.
In anticipation of the same thing happening to my comment in Bill McKibben: Time Is Not on Our Side
Gee whiz, another McKibben piece, and not a word about CO2 production increases in the 3rd world. In 2011, e.g., Chinese per capita CO2 increased by 9%.
Both CO2 climate catastrophists, and so-called climate change deniers, agree that CO2 is “well mixed”. Certainly a physics respecting guy like McKibben agrees, does he not? Release CO2 in China, and it disperses, globally, in short order. Therefore, if you choose to believe that CO2 represents some grave threat to Mother Earth and its inhabitants, you really should be able and willing to connect the dots between global CO2 production, and what that says about whatever political effort McKibben is pushing for.
He ducks the issue (even given 1 sentence ‘devoted’ to it, on 350.org), and says nothing about the possibilites for zero carbon, dense forms of energy that could entice the 3rd world to drop their coal plant building program. What coal burning program is that?
From the Guardian: More than 1,000 new coal plants planned worldwide, figures show
India is planning 455 new plants compared to 363 in China, which is seeing a slowdown in its coal investments after a vast building programme in the past decade.
Not only doesn’t McKibben talk about 3rd world CO2 production, he has nothing to say about accelerating research into dense, zero carbon alternatives. Consider(from Wikipedia):
The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (roughly equivalent to $25.8 billion as of 2012[1]).
130,000 people, while Eric Lerner, of Focus Fusion (which has beat the big hot fusion projects ito of a max temperature parameter) has a staff of 3. And he has to waste time and energy scrounging around for necessary funding.
The most exciting prospects, for near term zero carbon energy, may well be LENRs (so-called cold fusion).
There’s no Manhattan project sized effort for that going on, either. There are commerical interests pursuing this, but even if it’s developed, will it be allowed to be sold before the US population is harnessed to a carbon tax? Somehow, I don’t think Bill McKibben wants to explore either the state of LENR technology, nor the possibilities for accelerating progress, nor the financial interests that would oppose selling LENRS.
In short, I consider Bill McKibben to be a pied Piper for a Green Veal Pen. I wish him luck stopping the Tar Sands Goo Pipeline, even if I’m indifferent about a divestment program (because it will accomplish nothing, even if successful; quite the thing for a Veal Penner!). But if McKibben really believes his CO2 rhetoric, he should do much, much better.
Regarding his CO2 rhetoric, which he claims is “physics”, I don’t want to get into it, much. Here’s a good starter video, which touches on both the physics and the politics of CO2 climate catastrophism.
The HADCRUT4 data set released last year shows no statistically significant global warming in 16 years. You can learn more about the significance of that here (see also the comments by Monckton about ENSO related variations). McKibben is talking about
“continental” US temperatures being the hottest “ever” – oh God! See (e.g.): Watts, et. al. (draft) have shown US temperatures improperly corrected for urban head island effect, has exaggerated temperature increases by a factor of 2; research on Medieval Warming Period in North America; note that “continental US” may or may not include Alaska (see wikipedia), but McKibben links to a graph of contiguous US (48 states) temperatures: “In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state (Alaska) cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit.”; China is currently experiencing coldest temperatures in 28 years; recent cold snap that killed hundreds in Russia in Eastern Europe.I’m tired of digging up references, but here’s a last one. As per this data set, it was the 7th coldest year, WORLDWIDE, in the last 10 years.(Even as it was the 9th warmest in the last 34 years.) Yeah, that’s not nearly as significant as no statistically significant global warming in 16 years, but it puts the contiguous US temperature record, in a saner context. Recall, please, that the US land mass comprises less than 2% of the earth’s surface area (3,536,290 square miles / 196,900,000 square miles ) See temperature anomaly data below, which I sorted via Excel).
Ya see, Bill, while “Climate change denier” is the doublespeak meme of choice for people like you, those of us with a memory recall that it was global warming that preceded it.
2008 -0.009
2004 0.108
2011 0.13
2012 0.161
2006 0.186
2003 0.187
2007 0.202
2009 0.218
2005 0.26
2010 0.394
There was, BTW, and tangential reference to China, viz.,
It could care less whether putting a price on carbon slowed the pace of development in China, or made agribusiness less profitable
This completely fails to convey the magnitude of the current Chinese contribution to CO2….
Also, my quote of my post contains 1 correction (continental -> contiguous).
31 Comments
This is bullshit, as I commented in a previous entry of yours:
This was predicted:
As was this:
Both the heat and the cold.
If you don’t understand the science, don’t comment on it. I’ll give you a hint: Latent Heat of Fusion.
Your HADCRUT4 data set lies have been debunked previously here and elsewhere. This is why very few people view you as credible — on any subject.
From the above article:
Rose’s factually challenged article was predictably reproduced uncritically by the usual climate denial blogs such as metascam and referenced by Fox News, perhaps in an attempt to distract from this year’s record-breaking Arctic sea ice minimum. However, virtually every point made in the article was factually incorrect, as Rose would have known if he were a Skeptical Science reader, because we recently pre-bunked his piece.
Summary
To sum up, Rose and Curry were simply incorrect in virtually every assertion made in this Mail article.
Global surface temperatures have most likely increased since 1997.
Focusing on short-term temperature changes confuses short-term noise and long-term signal.
Most global warming goes into heating the oceans, and as Nuccitelli et al. (2012) showed, global warming has not slowed.
Natural variability is much smaller than the long-term global warming signal, and smaller even than the global warming signal over the past two decades.
The slowed rate of global surface warming over the past decade is consistent with individual model runs, which show that these ‘hiatus decades’ are entirely expected.
Over the long-term, the Earth has warmed as much as expected.
Carbon pricing will result in a net benefit the economy as compared to doing nothing and trying to adapt to the consequences.
I don’t really care if you think LENR’s are BS. You addressed one theory of LENR’s, whether or not they produce heat doesn’t depend on whether we understand them, at this time, or not.
Why don’t you link to your claimed prediction? Notice that I supplied lots of links. I’m not going to just take your word for it.
Also, please supply a link for the prediction that Alaska would cool by ~2.4 deg F in 2000-2010.
Does this mean that “we” are psychic?
Huh? Who are you kidding, with this nonsense? See my diary
Is This Any Way to Model a Catastrophe? IPCC Methane Projections Are As Exaggerated As Temperature Projections, including my comments.
I’ll copy my comment 86, so nobody misses it:
I haven’t read the Nuccitelli paper, but I can tell you it was covered at wattsupwiththat.com. Here.
From the WUWT post:
From a comment about a comment, by Bob Tisdale:
And then
The WUWT debunk of Nuccitelli also contains this interesting comment, regarding inside information about how the ARGOS data was ‘adjusted’ to make it look like the oceans have warmed, slightly, instead of cooled, slightly. (ARGOS is a system of 3,000 or so buoys that submerge, taking temperature reading, surface and radio the data to satellites, and then repeat the process.)
There’s no link provided – I don’t know if the author is a hoaxer, or not. If he’s not bamboozling us, then I’d say that the phrase
is a clear indication of fraud. That’s because, even if you can make a rational argument for ‘culling’, in no way can you arbitrarily and rationally declare that culling must have a pre-determined end result, which reflects, in magnitude (but in the opposite direction) your supposedly erroneous data gathering.
So, either the comment is a hoax, or we have yet more indication of climate science corruption.
Right. It’s much more plausible that there is a conspiracy among 99% of the thousands of certified climatologists on planet earth.
Can you name a scientific scandal of similar scope in the last 100 — or 1,000 — years? Or do you also claim that this is a historical first?
Last year, from NOAA:
- The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January 2012 was the 19th warmest on record at 12.35°C (54.23°F), which is 0.35°C (0.63°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). The margin of error associated with this temperature is +/- 0.08°C (0.14°F). This January is the coolest of all months on record since February 2008. However, it also marks the 26th January and 323rd consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last month with below average temperatures was February 1985.
- The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for February 2012 was the 22nd warmest on record and the coolest since 2008, at 12.47°C (54.57°F), which is 0.37°C (0.67°F) above the 20th century average of 12.1°C (53.9°F).
- The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for March 2012 was the 16th warmest on record at 13.16°C (55.73°F), which is 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 20th century average of 12.7°C (54.9°F). The margin of error associated with this temperature is ± 0.07°C (0.13°F). March 2012 is the coolest March since 1999. However, it also marks the 36th consecutive March and 325th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last March with below-average temperature was March 1976 and the last month with below-average temperature was February 1985.
- he combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for April 2012 was 14.35°C (57.87°F), which is 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F). The margin of error associated with this temperature is ±0.08°C (0.14°F). The global temperature departure from the 20th century average and the monthly rank were the highest since November 2010, near the onset of first back-to-back La Niñas in 2010. The global land surface temperature was 1.39°C (2.50°F) above the 20th century average of 8.1°C (46.5°F), making this the second warmest April, behind 2007. The margin of error is ±0.11°C (0.20°F).
- The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2012 was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the second warmest May since records began in 1880, behind only 2010.
- The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2012 was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F). This is the fourth warmest June since records began in 1880.
- The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2012 was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F). This is the fourth warmest July since records began in 1880.
- The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for August 2012 was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F). This is the fourth warmest August since records began in 1880.
0 The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for September 2012 tied with 2005 as the warmest September on record, at 0.67°C (1.21°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F). Records began in 1880.
- The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for October 2012 tied with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record, at 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F). Records began in 1880.
- The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for November 2012 was 0.67°C (1.21°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (60.4°F). This is the fifth warmest November since records began in 1880. Including this November, the 10 warmest Novembers have occurred in the past 12 years.
Your question is naive, on the one hand (once again, see ‘Not Even Wrong’, ‘The Trouble with Physics’, and Feynman’s essay ‘Cargo Cult Science’), and on the other hand doesn’t reflect knowledge of either how shaky the 99% meme is (one of the sources for a 97% consensus claim is based on 77 ‘culled’ responses), nor how fuzzy it is.
There’s at least 1 other study of this sort, that involves lexical analysis of climate papers, but I haven’t had time to look at it, carefully.
For the millionth time, most “climate change deniers” deny neither that climate changes, nor that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Also, once again, Judith Curry has written about how “consensus” has no validity for a “messy” area of science – which is what climate science is. See her blog for her definition of “messy”. I posted a diary on this.
Sometime last year, Synoia asked metamars straight out if he or she is being paid to post this kind of material, and suggested that SPPI might be the source. Metamars refused to give a straight question a straight answer. I would suggest to Synoia, UCT1, and all others that it’s a waste of time to engage metamars’ material points, which are pretty standard denialist fare. If a comment is needed, just ask metamars who s/he works for, and how much they pay. Who knows, it might be illuminating!
That being said, I appreciate UCT1′s aggregation of NOAA data @8!
I’ve stated – more than once, at myFDL – that nobody has ever paid me to post anything. If you claim otherwise, you are lying. I frankly find the question insulting, though I have to admit that I’ve wondered the same thing about other persistent climate posters. Given the degree of brainwashing that’s gone into CO2 catastrophism, and the lack of reasoning ability in the general population, there’s probably no crying need to pay anybody. And yet I still wonder how the failure to deal with scientific reality, when I present it, is so complete. So, I guess the question is understandable, if you make certain assumptions about what kind of person would ask such a question.
UCT1′s “aggregation of NOAA data” appears to be a feeble attempt by UCT1 to avoid addressing the question of whether or not the recent or current period of 16 years with no statistically significant warming represents a failure – or a highly likely failure – of the models that form the basis of the CO2 catastrophists religion. For that, UCT1 would need to address what some of the climate modelers, themselves, have said. It’s not necessary to guess which groups of modelers these might be. I’ve given this information.
UCT1 also appears to not be interested in addressing the question of whether the ARGOS data was tampered with, for political reasons. That’s probably a wise tactic, if UCT1′s purpose is basically political, with no respect for scientific truth or ethics. He also had no response as to the debunk of Nuccitelli’s paper, that I posted. Well, while this isn’t a science forum, and I haven’t read Nuccitelli’s paper, myself, if Nucci is wrong, that leaves the CO2 catastrophists with next to no options for having even a weak hypothesis which would make their energy budgets add up.
Note that Nucci somehow being right wouldn’t rescue the climate models, per se; it would, though, rescue the hypothesis of catastrophic AGW.
Christopher Monckton has very recently given a lengthy account of fudged data and analyses of the climate establishment. Not a pretty picture.
Finally, I note that you, just like all the rest of the CO2 catastrophist crowd, show REMARKABLY LITTLE INTEREST IN DENSE, CARBON FREE, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY SEDUCE THE THIRD WORLD AWAY FROM THEIR DATE WITH A HIGH CARBON, COAL-BURNING-INDUCED DESTINY, IF THEY’RE SUCCESSFULLY DEVELOPED AND DEPLOYED
This is every bit as noticeable as is the fact that nearly everybody ducks the question (which I’ve put many times) “What is a climate change denier? What definition can you offer that doesn’t wreak of doublespeak?” Furthermore, why would anybody want to use a phrase oozing with doublespeak? OK, sure, a dishonest political animal will lie and spin, effortlessly. I just find it hard to believe that near everybody would so consistently fail to process the arguments against their secular religion, and not even be able to process the need for a plan B, given 3rd world fossil fuel consumption trends.
Something really stinks, here, and it ain’t me.
You serve evil oligarchs, Oil companies, Coal companies, nuclear power companies, who are destroying the planet. That makes you an accessory to criminals. Your Posts always protect corporations as you slander environmentalists.
You are a Grand Liar and your scientific knowledge is laughable. You are just another Teabagger Ratfucker, who is helping to destroy the planet. Catapult your toxic COINTELPRO elsewhere.
Aw, shucks, did I hit a nerve?
Your post is not only full of lies, there’s one there that’s REALLY, REALLY STUPID, besides.
It is me, and not you and your ilk (such as Bill McKibben), who has called for Manhattan Project level of development for dense, zero carbon energy sources, such as LENRs and fusion. Such developments would eventually be catastrophic for oil companies, as demand for heating and transportation would be met by the new sources. (Oil would still be in demand for agriculture, and plastic and drug manufacturing.)
It is me, and not you and your ilk (such as Bill McKibben), who has called for RICO type investigation into suppressed alternative energy, and energy saving technology, by oil and car companies. I frankly don’t know the details about RICO (I’m not a lawyer), but at least some folks end up in jail for RICO activities.
It is me, and not you and your ilk (such as Bill McKibben), who has called for nationalization of suppressed alternative energy, and energy saving technology, by any company (including oil companies) who is keeping such technology on the shelf.
It is me, and not you and your ilk (such as Bill McKibben), who has called for investigation into suppressors of less exotic technology, such as solar heating, in places where it’d be extremely appropriate, like Florida.
Oh, yeah, here’s another indication of Bill McKibben’s Green Veal Pen pedigree. I just did a search on ALEC at 350.org, and as per 1st page of hits, there appears to be only 2 mentions of ALEC. One is of a local event (http://local.350.org/events/62/), meaning, I suppose, that this is mentioned in spite of Bill McKibben, and not because of him. The only other honest to God mention of ALEC appears to be in a comment. (There’s also a reference to ALEC aka ” Arid Lands Environment Centre”.
Say wait a minute, hasn’t the legal assault associated with fracking pestilence been linked to ALEC? And doesn’t fracking accelerate the release of methane (a GHG) into the environment?
I’ve heard Gary Null mention, recently, that groups that locally worked to block fracking were overruled by state level ALEC type laws. See how stupid, and pointless, organizing at just the local level against ALEC is? No wonder Green Veal Pen-ner McKibben allowed a local, anti-ALEC program to be listed. God forbid that he would help educate the public on a group that has conspired, for many years, to shove business-first legislation down our throats. Including legislation favorable to petrochemical companies.
I wonder how much the Koch brothers are profiting by fracking?
(There are lots of hits on ‘fracking’ at 350.org. About half appear to be directed at state government, so that is cool. Even so, why be ignorant about what you’re really up against? Also, about half of the listings are for locally directed efforts, which are doomed to fail, as per ALEC specs. Not good.)
None of your ilk, here, at MyFDL show much eagerness to even discuss the Chinese and other 3rd world level of CO2 production. Doing show shows up the shallowness of groups like 350.org, which, however painful that may be for fans, should have been graciously accepted as a challenge to get smarter about what they say they believe about CO2.
In practicing ALEC-omerta, at least on his website (I really don’t know about his public speeches), McKibben shares a regrettable trait with another champion of the little people, Barack Obama. See How you, too, can figure out that Obama betrays the 99%, and works for the 1%, first and foremost.
Any particular reason you choose 1997 as your reference point? Like, for example, 1998 was a strong el Nino year and therefore particularly hot? Why not choose 1999 instead?
See this graph to see how denialists cherry-pick data.
metamars, I feel you make a valuable contribution to the discussions we need to be having about how to correct the imbalance of climate that is rapidly changing the planet to such an extent that even more assaults are being made on pristine areas and waterways in pursuit of more and more hazardous fossil fuel extraction.
This, I feel, is not and should not be to the exclusion of any ideas, no matter how harebrained, because I don’t think any of us have all the answers. It would be well if we can each have a broader view of what is at stake and perhaps leave the personalities out of it. I am open to all ideas about what is going on so long as there are no underlying agendas other than restoring the balance in a healthful way.
I do take issue with your claim that some kind of natural progression of planetary evolution is taking place here. Our atmosphere is the skin of the planet and we have affected it with our machines and the need for combustion engines in an extraordinary and telling way. Just as in cities the light being artificially produced makes the heavens invisible, so too have we affected natural processes worldwide. We have to fix that.
I am perfectly amenable to the concept that our heroes have feet of clay, and certainly the subject is complex enough that there are all sorts of avenues of consequence that need to be explored. We know how shortsighted some apparently benign projects have turned out to be – look at rabbits in Australia and New Zealand. Look at Mansanto and the disappearance of butterflies.
I was having a somewhat similar thought to yours about the kinds of ‘activity’ we desperately need to get the excess carbon that machines have put into the air out of the air – my way seemed the best to me as far as personal involvement, which is that I grow as many plants as I can, everywhere in my small environment that I can do so. The easiest are the spiderplant family, almost indestructible those and they don’t need much light. I am gradually filling my home with those.
I don’t know if there can be machines which run on carbon and exhaust less overall than they take in. Algae seem the best doers of this, if indeed there can be less carbon involved in their upkeep. Mother Nature may perhaps turn our seas into giant algae farms eventually. It’s already happening off the coast of New Zealand – shellfish are off the market for the usual beachcombing activities of summer this year.
The sea is really where it’s all at.
Thanks for a calm and non-insulting post! Quite refreshing.
Freeman Dyson has made calculations, which he describes somewhere in a youtube video or two, as to how to what would be required to pull carbon out of the air using biomass cultivation. Some of this appears to be happening, ‘naturally’, as Africa has become a greener place, presumably in large part (or mostly) because of anthropogenic CO2.
I don’t know a lot about sequestration ideas, but I do know that the deep oceans are being considered for this purpose. Colder water holds more CO2. Sequestering in landfills carries the risk of asphyxiation if there’s a sudden release, and since it gets hotter the more you dig, that’s a serious concern.
Personally, I think we have much more to fear from global cooling, than global heating. Historically, just a few degrees of heating (such as during the Medieval Warming Period and Roman and Minoan warm periods) were much friendlier to at least European civilization than the cold spells.
Thank you for comparing me with Bill McKibben.
You just cannot help yourself, and you must criticize the FDL website and the “ilk” such as myself. for not worshipping your neo-con bullshit.
The reason I know you are a fraud, is because you never provide any information about the Energy Oliarchs. You never exposre anything about the energy cartels, as you promote disinformation against environmentalists.
Oh yes, the term “Veal Pen”, an FDL meme, is for stooges of the Establishment, such as yourself.
My question to you was hardly naive, as I know the answer. Your feeble refusal to give even a single example of a scientific scandal of the last 1,000 years with a similar scope to the one you vociferiously allege among currently certified climatologists tells us everything we need to know about your methods and goals.
In almost every post, you whine about FDL supposedly putting your denialist commentary in moderation but clearly it isn’t the denialist aspect of it that being moderated because they allow you to post these absurd screeds at least once a week. You should thank whatever god, (Koch), you worship that Jane allows you to put this stuff up. Maybe the comments that are going into moderation are some of your more, shall we say, less than civil attacks upon your critics. Juliana is a far better person than I because the only thing I believe you contribute not only has no value but can be a liability. No other liberal, (reality grounded), website would let you post this….material….and you still can’t post without lamenting how poorly you’re being treated here. I invite you to post elsewhere if this blog doesn’t suit you.
You’re lying. I’ve never complained about my posts being put into moderation, except when that actually happened. Which is, AFAICR, twice.
I find this amusing, on two levels. I’ve been slimed repeatedly, whenever writing about climate, including in this diary (see comment 12, for a real doozy), yet you didn’t notice that. (The prize, though, goes to the slimer, on another diary, who accused me of taking “blood money”.)
Secondly, although you didn’t seem to get it, this post is, essentially, my “moderated” (i.e., censored – it’s still in moderation, as I correctly expected) comment. I don’t see any “uncivil” attacks therein, do you?
While I agree that it’s to FDL’s credit that they don’t censor me, in general, IMO it’s to the great shame of the liberal blogosphere that turn a blind eye to the endemic corruption in the climate science community. Not to mention abiding smearers of good, honest scientists, including whistle-blowers. The similarity to the censoring of liberals trying to criticize the Democratic Party on lefty websites, can’t be missed. I assume that similar forces are at work.
Still waiting for your list of scientific scandals on par with your current alleged widespread climatologist corruption scandal…
FDL is flaming the polluters of the planet, or at least nipping at their heels. And Bill McKibben talks physics at MyFDL.
There are no American heroes in Irak or Afghanistan. The new American heroes are waging war against the hideous TransCanada tar pipeline.
Again, nobody is forcing you to post here. You do it for the traffic because nobody but other nutbags visit the denial sites. Personally I’d be happy to wave bye-bye to you but I don’t have any illusions about that.
Interesting that you parse things with a nit comb in order to justify to yourself calling me a “liar” yet you just told a lie yourself. Just what are you basing the statement that I “didn’t notice” comment 12? The fact that I didn’t leap to your defense? Of course I noticed it and I got a pretty good chuckle out of it. In fact, that’s what inspired me to write “Koch” in parenthesis in my own comment. Now who’s lying metamars?
Chuckle away. I find you a small embarrassement here.
Fortunately, most sentient beings know bs when they see it.
Juliania is just a really nice person, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Everyone else calls you out.
I expect that Jane’s far too busy to even note you on her radar.
I didn’t know you felt that way about me demi. Thanks for clarifying.
Shoot! You know I meant to respond to the author.
(hanging my head in shame.)
Forgive me?
And, as a further consolation, I have spinach feta cheese meatloaf and baked potatoes that I’ll share.
*whew* I’d hoped that was the case. Now I can work out without the distraction of tears. Thanks. :)
Baby, if I thought you didn’t get my message, there’d be more than tears. I’d be gone, likkity split and never return.
((Margaret))
Let’s try this, again. You said,
(emphasis mine)
In reality, while I’ve made hundreds of comments, and probably dozens of diaries, I’ve only complained, AFAICR, twice about being censored. And that’s because I can only recall being censored (via the endless “awaiting moderation” trick) twice.
ERGO, YOU HAVE TOLD A BALD FACED LIE.
Are you denying that you have lied, or aren’t you?