What's with the animosity towards Climate Change advocates?

[Glom]

AAGW = Apocalyptic Anthropogenic Global Warming. I've read that the TAR doesn't even make apocalyptic predictions anymore. I'll have to get it out of the library and see.

I too think that cutting air pollution is great thing. But carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is an essential chemical to all life on this planet. I also love energy efficiency. I just replaced my old CRT monitor with a new flat screen. I now adopt the practise of turning off my TV when I go out, rather than leave it on standby. I turn out lights I don't need. I drive a standard petrol car that does more than 45mpg (sure big sporty cars are fun, but I don't think they are as practical to own and use).

But the environmental movement as a whole has cried wolf too many times for my liking and no-one seems to have learnt scepticism in the face of their incessant bandwagon ravings. How many times have we faced imminent destruction at the hands of acid rain, ozone depletion, nuclear power, pesticides, preservatives, phalates, soot, overpopulation, alar, nitrates, GM foods? How many of these doomsdays have materialised? I just can't trust them anymore.

The attitude towards Bush on Kyoto is unfair. Sure there are many grievances to have with him but the Kyoto card is one giant ad hominem. As has been said, it wasn't his fault that America didn't sign up and he has sponsored a series of initiatives in nuclear and renewable energy, hydrogen, carbon sequestration and reforestation. Frankly, he's done more than European countries, who feel self-righteous satisfaction with having signed up and can sit back, raise a few taxes and think they are the god of environmentalism. America is also the only country with a carbon balance, since their massive emissions of carbon dioxide are matched by the rapid regrowths of forests that were formerly cut down for organic agriculture and "splitting wood, not atoms".

[Disinfo Agent]

I think the bottom line is that it is simply a political subject. As such, many people get as obtuse about it as creationists are about young earth nonsense. Take a look at the 'Climate Change' topic in General Astronomy. Tell me that a good amount of the pro-global warming comments on that thread are not thinly disguised political rants. Notice how whenever a global warming debate crops up on BABB, the 'Bush is destroying the world with his enviormentalist policies!' crowd starts crawling out, as if those postings help prove their point. Notice how no matter how many times something is repeated ('It doesn't matter what Bush thought of Kyoto because it was dead in the water before he even entered office') it can be completely ignored.

That's funny. I see as many irrational reactions on the other side of the debate.
Yeah, it's probably too political.

[Irishman]

One other point, people get a bit excited when they feel like they're being ignored. Like dgruss - this whole thread for him has been presenting a case and asking for the detailed rebuttal and not receiving it. Being told "the evidence is overwhelming" repeatedly but not being presented with that evidence tends to get one exasperated.

[Disinfo Agent]

Yes, but this specific thread was not originally about the global warming theory per se.

[Glom]

Then what about the other threads? Bad jcsd has provided the best challenge to dgruss so far.

[mike alexander]

jrkeller wrote:

There are many answers to this questions. I'll just spit them out as they pop into my head.

1) Many of the loudest supporters of this cause are the Hollywood elite. They tell us cut back and yet they do not do the same. The own multiple cars, homes, private jets, etc. Hypocrites. I have a hard time supporting a cause, when it is "do as I say, not as I do"

2) Some of politicians are no better. John Kerry and Al Gore are perfect examples. Kerry has 7 homes, a private jet, and a yacht. During the Clinton/Gore years, we saw the biggest explosion of SUVs, especially the big ones like the Ford Excursion and the Hummer.

While I can agree with these, I would only say that emotional resistance to the message because of the messenger is not ‘looking at the data’. Like how I feel about anything Rush Limbaugh says: his delivery clouds my ability to listen to his content.

3) When it comes to the science side of things, it seems that CO2 is always to blame for global warming. There are other gasses, solar activity, deforestation, changes in ground solar absorption (paving over plants), aerosols, particulates, dust, aircraft contrails and others that are all know to play a role, yet rarely discussed.

Agreed. This is probably the most complex system anyone has ever tried to analyze.

4) Some of the arguments are obviously political. There was a website/organization that claimed all the hurricanes in this past year were due to Bush’s environmental policy, even though various hurricane research centers said this was not the case, because we are entering the high point of the hurricane cycle. They seem to forget 1995, a Clinton year, when there were more tropical storms than 2004. Also 1998 and 2000 had one less storm than 2004.

Agreed. Some of these things are so stupid that they deserve not a reasoned response, but a raspberry. As Lazarus Long said: “Climate is what we expect; weather is what we get.” But one must also remember that there IS a difference between weather and climate.

5) The kyoto treaty is a joke. China and India together produce as much CO2 and the US and more methane, like 5 - 10 times. Methane is a far worst greenhouse gas than CO2. Yet they are not bound to the treaty.

Partially agree. This depends on the mean residence time of methane in the atmosphere, which I don’t know.

6) When was the last time your seven day weather forecast came out right on the mark? How do you expect people to predict 10-100 years in the future?

I understand, but I think this is a bit unfair. Again, the difference between weather and climate. A seven day local forecast will not be very accurate at the detailed level, yet large bodies of accumulated data suggest I can predict the mean temperature six months from now with fair accuracy.

7) As someone who has over 20 years thermal testing, I find the conclusions arrived at very poor science, like what is presented here in Figure 1. They show that the temperature variations of the Earth's atmosphere is aprroximately 1F(postive and negnative). Most temperature measuring systems have error on the order of 2-4F. In other words, the predicted trends are within the error of the system. They also need to calibrate regularly. And for best results, the same instrument should be used to take all the measurements. I doubt this has been done.

Again, I will partially agree, but with some caveats. On measurement uncertainty: statistical averaging of multiple measurements can produce an accurate mean value with an associated variance (assuming the uncertainty is truly random and its distribution can be determined). As an example, suppose my house is on a block somewhere between one half and one mile around. I want to measure the distance accurately with my car odometer, but it only reads to the nearest mile. Obviously, a single trip around the block won’t tell me much, but if I drove around a hundred times and found I had gone 76 miles, I can say with good certainty that the distance around my block is just about ¾ of a mile.
The need for calibration is a given. And while use of the same instrument would be optimal, demonstration that multiple instruments are all calibrated to the same traceable standard is usually considered adequate. The same argument could be used for mesurement bias; if the bias of the measuring device is accurately known (e.g., it runs two degrees low) it is appropriate to apply a correction factor between instruments.

Finally, climate modeling is the most complex combined, heat transfer, thermodynamic and fluid dynamics system that we've tried ever tried to model. There are hundreds of parameters that need to be included in the modeling process. How do we know that we've included them all, that we've modeled them correctly and modeled their interactions correctly.

We don’t. One cannot include the unknown, only continue to refine models as new knowledge becomes available. Which sounds like science.

As was mentioned previously, extrapolation beyond the data is always hazardous. Confidence intervals diverge rapidly. This should ALWAYS be shown in any presentation of the data. Another problem mentioned is the proper choice of equation used for thr regression of the data, since this will set the shape of the extrapolation. Ideally, the equation used is most accurate when its form is based on some underlying physical mechanism (for example, one could fit radioactivity decay data to a high order polynomial and get any desired degree of interpolative accuracy, but for extrapolative accuracy it is best to use the inverse curve derived rom the constant rate equation). Many areas use such extrapolation and we at least provisionally accept them when we feel the underlying mechanism is understood well enough for the model to reflect it.

[teddyv]

The other day, the local paper had an editorial by gentlemen by the name of Fred Singer, commenting on the new Crichton book. Of course a day later Greenpeace Canada boss has his letter to the editor esentially dismissing the Mr. Singer because he has some relation to the mining industry.

This is the frustration inherent in this debate: there is no debate because each side, in particular the environmental side, will completely dimiss out of hand any argument or evidence if it is remotely associated with someone or something that may not conform to their view.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, this issue has become ideological.

[Disinfo Agent]

Of course a day later Greenpeace Canada boss has his letter to the editor esentially dismissing the Mr. Singer because he has some relation to the mining industry.

Was that all his letter said?

[teddyv]

Of course a day later Greenpeace Canada boss has his letter to the editor esentially dismissing the Mr. Singer because he has some relation to the mining industry.

Was that all his letter said?

I cannot remember the entire letter (it wasn't long) and half of it was devoted to fleshing out the original writer's credentials (or lack thereof). I am planning to send in a letter as well, and will want to review it.

[Glom]

Fred Singer is a noted climatologist. The mining industry? If it was an oil company, an airline or an SUV manufacturer, that would at least be a basis for an ad hominem remark, but the mining industry is hardly on top of the list of suspects. That is truly grasping at straws.

Greenpeace are a bunch of total nutters. As I said, if they told me rain was wet, I would have to go outside and check and recheck and check again and then I still wouldn't believe them. The fact that they keep on getting presented as rational and authoritative spokepeople on the environment is the most blood boiling thing of all. They are a group of extremists who won't stop until 99% of humanity lies dead and the remaining 1% are enslaved before their neomarxist elite. They are liars, conmen and terrorists.

[teddyv]

Greenpeace are a bunch of total nutters. As I said, if they told me rain was wet, I would have to go outside and check and recheck and check again and then I still wouldn't believe them. The fact that they keep on getting presented as rational and authoritative spokepeople on the environment is the most blood boiling thing of all. They are a group of extremists who won't stop until 99% of humanity lies dead and the remaining 1% are enslaved before their neomarxist elite. They are liars, conmen and terrorists.

Can I borrow that for my letter to the editor?

[Glom]

Knock yourself out. They are the facts. Okay, maybe the destruction and enslavement bit is more of a feeling based on their distinctly antihuman attitudes. But the rest are the facts.

[Grizzly]

Fred Singer is a noted climatologist. The mining industry? If it was an oil company, an airline or an SUV manufacturer, that would at least be a basis for an ad hominem remark, but the mining industry is hardly on top of the list of suspects.

Ad hominem aside... mining in this context meant coal. As in a fossil fuel used in the generation of electricity or the fuelling of burners for the production of steel.

And while we're on it, just a little question I have. Who determines whether person X is "noted" and person "Y" isn't. Just curious. Because this could rapidly become my "noted" is more "noted" than yours.

----
Instrumentum aeri temperando
Airconditioner

[Disinfo Agent]

Greenpeace are a bunch of total nutters. As I said, if they told me rain was wet, I would have to go outside and check and recheck and check again and then I still wouldn't believe them. The fact that they keep on getting presented as rational and authoritative spokepeople on the environment is the most blood boiling thing of all. They are a group of extremists who won't stop until 99% of humanity lies dead and the remaining 1% are enslaved before their neomarxist elite. They are liars, conmen and terrorists.

And so vitriolic.

[Glom]

the fuelling of burners for the production of steel.

That could be done by PBMR.

I guess my above post counts as animosity. But in the case of G-word, that's different. For one, it's not about anyone issue. It's about them as a whole.

The important thing is that they can't just dismiss him based on who they say he might be spinning for. They must address the issues at hand. G-word and their ilk toss around ad hominems against those who don't say what they want, and argumentum ad verecundiam to those who do.

And while we're on it, just a little question I have. Who determines whether person X is "noted" and person "Y" isn't. Just curious. Because this could rapidly become my "noted" is more "noted" than yours.

He's noted climatologist because he's a climatologist who's participation is well known in this issue. His participation has been noted.

[dgruss23]

One other point, people get a bit excited when they feel like they're being ignored. Like dgruss - this whole thread for him has been presenting a case and asking for the detailed rebuttal and not receiving it. Being told "the evidence is overwhelming" repeatedly but not being presented with that evidence tends to get one exasperated.

[To the shock of all] I'm not allowing myself to get exasperated or frustrated on this one. [/To the shock of all]

I've not found a reason to get frustrated. I've carefully outlined and referenced the reasons that AAGW is contradicted by the evidence. I've thrown down the gauntlet asking for a response and nobody has picked it up yet.

I think the lack of a response itself says something as to the accuracy of Discover's claim that the evidence is "overwhelming". Its a pretty clear case of proclaiming with certainty as a substitute for presenting solid evidence justifying certainty.

[dgruss23]

Greenpeace are a bunch of total nutters. As I said, if they told me rain was wet, I would have to go outside and check and recheck and check again and then I still wouldn't believe them. The fact that they keep on getting presented as rational and authoritative spokepeople on the environment is the most blood boiling thing of all. They are a group of extremists who won't stop until 99% of humanity lies dead and the remaining 1% are enslaved before their neomarxist elite. They are liars, conmen and terrorists.

What are you really trying to say Glom? I'm not sure your message is coming through!

[dgruss23]

Yes, but this specific thread was not originally about the global warming theory per se.

Grizzly certainly had to have been at least in part referring to comments that Glom and I have made. If you look back on page 1 you'll note that both of us responded to the question with the reasons we have a problem with AAGW and our reactions to the debates here on BABB. I think we both in good faith answered Grizzly's question for our part.

What more is there to say about the OP? Anybody who wishes to respond to the OP still can.

But then we had this statement that those of us that are skeptical of AAGW are not paying attention to the peer reviewed literature. At that point I consider it reasonable to respond with a specific outline of the peer reviewed literature and arguments that back up what I’m saying.

And by discussing the science of the issue in detail, we've clarified exactly what we mean when we say it is the science and not the politics that brings about our skepticism of AAGW. As Irishman points out, when you present that evidence, and nobody responds to the detailed points we've made, but people still insist that the evidence is overwhelming - that may lead to a bit of testiness.

And it appears our arguments have provoked some thought. There have been people asking the AAGW supporters to respond - now questioning whether or not the evidence for AAGW is as strong as they've been led to believe.

[bobjohnston]

The other day, the local paper had an editorial by gentlemen by the name of Fred Singer, commenting on the new Crichton book. Of course a day later Greenpeace Canada boss has his letter to the editor esentially dismissing the Mr. Singer because he has some relation to the mining industry.

This is the frustration inherent in this debate: there is no debate because each side, in particular the environmental side, will completely dimiss out of hand any argument or evidence if it is remotely associated with someone or something that may not conform to their view.

I would affirm that the environmental side is particular guilty of ad hominen rejection of evidence. The scientists who are willing to stand up and criticize AAGW on the basis of the evidence are promptly rejected as being connected to industries with the implied goal of destroying the Earth, whether or not the alledged connections exist. One scientist I know reports surreptitious attempts to fabricate a connection between him and fossil fuel industries, presumably to form a future basis for ad hominem attacks.

What makes this even more absurd is that it is the pot calling the kettle black. The "scientist" leaders of the AAGW campaign live off of grants that exist because they have persuaded politicians to divert vast sums of tax money to the study of AAGW. The activist groups promoting AAGW gain enormous political clout if research should go their way. Where is the greater conflict of interest?

I say, debate the scientific evidence. If you can't, don't call yourself a scientist.

[jrkeller]

5) The kyoto treaty is a joke. China and India together produce as much CO2 and the US and more methane, like 5 - 10 times. Methane is a far worst greenhouse gas than CO2. Yet they are not bound to the treaty.

Partially agree. This depends on the mean residence time of methane in the atmosphere, which I don’t know.

I do not the residence time of methane, but what I've been able to find states, it is about 10 years, CO2 is about 100 years. The real problem with methane is that it absorbs much more infrared radiation than CO2, something like 20 times, because its highest absorption wavelength corresponds to the average temperature of the Earth.

My problem with Kyoto is not that methane isn't included in the treaty, it is. It is that big producers of green house gasses aren't included in the treaty.

6) When was the last time your seven day weather forecast came out right on the mark? How do you expect people to predict 10-100 years in the future?

I understand, but I think this is a bit unfair. Again, the difference between weather and climate. A seven day local forecast will not be very accurate at the detailed level, yet large bodies of accumulated data suggest I can predict the mean temperature six months from now with fair accuracy.

First of all, climate models do not use accumulated data to make their future predictions, they develop models of the atmosphere, ocean and lands, using basic heat transfer and fluid mechanics relationships and equations.

From what I've been able to learn (by googling I admit), is that similar models used to predict your seven day forecast are the ones used to predict climate change. The long term climate models are just not as detailed.

7) As someone who has over 20 years thermal testing, I find the conclusions arrived at very poor science, like what is presented here in Figure 1. They show that the temperature variations of the Earth's atmosphere is aprroximately 1F(postive and negnative). Most temperature measuring systems have error on the order of 2-4F. In other words, the predicted trends are within the error of the system. They also need to calibrate regularly. And for best results, the same instrument should be used to take all the measurements. I doubt this has been done.

Again, I will partially agree, but with some caveats. On measurement uncertainty: statistical averaging of multiple measurements can produce an accurate mean value with an associated variance (assuming the uncertainty is truly random and its distribution can be determined). As an example, suppose my house is on a block somewhere between one half and one mile around. I want to measure the distance accurately with my car odometer, but it only reads to the nearest mile. Obviously, a single trip around the block won’t tell me much, but if I drove around a hundred times and found I had gone 76 miles, I can say with good certainty that the distance around my block is just about ¾ of a mile.

While I understand this example, I do not see how I could apply to temperature measurements, because temperature monitoring is a transient process.

The need for calibration is a given. And while use of the same instrument would be optimal, demonstration that multiple instruments are all calibrated to the same traceable standard is usually considered adequate. The same argument could be used for mesurement bias; if the bias of the measuring device is accurately known (e.g., it runs two degrees low) it is appropriate to apply a correction factor between instruments.

I went to the NOAA website and looked up the information on their weather stations. Starting in January of 2004, their are setting up new, state-of-the-art stations around the country. I tracked down the technical info on their sensors and thier accuracy is 0.3 C or about 0.5F. That is the sensor accuracy, which doesn't include the other errors associated with taking measurements, such as the data logger, heat leaks to environment, etc.

Finally, climate modeling is the most complex combined, heat transfer, thermodynamic and fluid dynamics system that we've tried ever tried to model. There are hundreds of parameters that need to be included in the modeling process. How do we know that we've included them all, that we've modeled them correctly and modeled their interactions correctly.

We don’t. One cannot include the unknown, only continue to refine models as new knowledge becomes available. Which sounds like science.

I agree with this. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen much and you get back to the title of this thread. I one disagrees with the GW crowd, you're labeled something like you hate the Earth. In my case, they just say, I'm from Texas and that I'm a George Bust mouthpiece or work for a Big Oil Company. It also works the other way arount too.

[Glom]

Weren't They Who Shall Not Be Named on the verge of bankrupcy before this issue began? Or was that the phalates thing that got them out of the red? The is no doubt that they make their money through donations, which requires them to scare the living daylights out of the punters, so I submit that if they reserve the right to dismiss Fred Singer because maybe he has ties to the mining industry, I reserve the right to dismiss them because they are profitting from Armageddon. I also reserve the right to dismiss Mann because he has achieved notoriety from his Hockey Stick. I reserve the right to dismiss the IPCC as a whole since they're a UN body, whose majority is the developing nations who are exempted from this treaty and stand to gain much in direct payments and competitiveness from the UNFCCC. I reserve the right to dismiss the EU since Kyoto gives them control over carbon credits and boosts their competitiveness against America, who is more heavily penalised despite being in better carbon balance. I reserve the right to dismiss Sir David King who is clearly being paid by the nuclear industry. I reserve the right to dismiss James Lovelock because of all the notoriety and money for appearances he is getting from this, plus he may have connections to the nuclear industry. I reserve the right to dismiss Blair and his government because they stand to gain politically for being seen to tackle a global crisis of this kind.

If anyone wants to engage in a battle of ad hominems, they're welcome to try. Alternatively, we could stick to the science.

[Disinfo Agent]

I've carefully outlined and referenced the reasons that AAGW is contradicted by the evidence. I've thrown down the gauntlet asking for a response and nobody has picked it up yet.

You mean in this thread? I know many people have debated you in other threads.
Maybe that's got something to do with the fact that it would be off-topic.

Anybody who wishes to respond to the OP still can.

And anyone who wishes to discuss the technical minutiae of global warming can start a new thread.

Grizzly certainly had to have been at least in part referring to comments that Glom and I have made. If you look back on page 1 you'll note that both of us responded to the question with the reasons we have a problem with AAGW and our reactions to the debates here on BABB.

Exactly. Global warming skeptics were asked why they were so hostile towards global warming advocates. The advocates, not the theory. But, instead of replying to the question asked, you replied to a different one.

[Thumper]

Greenpeace are a bunch of total nutters. As I said, if they told me rain was wet, I would have to go outside and check and recheck and check again and then I still wouldn't believe them. The fact that they keep on getting presented as rational and authoritative spokepeople on the environment is the most blood boiling thing of all. They are a group of extremists who won't stop until 99% of humanity lies dead and the remaining 1% are enslaved before their neomarxist elite. They are liars, conmen and terrorists.

What are you really trying to say Glom? I'm not sure your message is coming through!

It means he's dismissing out of hand anything they say based on their political positions and affiliations without examining the technical or scientific merits of their arguements.

[dgruss23]

I've carefully outlined and referenced the reasons that AAGW is contradicted by the evidence. I've thrown down the gauntlet asking for a response and nobody has picked it up yet.

You mean in this thread? I know many people have debated you in other threads.
Maybe that's got something to do with the fact that it would be off-topic.

Anybody who wishes to respond to the OP still can.

And anyone who wishes to discuss the technical minutiae of global warming can start a new thread.

Grizzly certainly had to have been at least in part referring to comments that Glom and I have made. If you look back on page 1 you'll note that both of us responded to the question with the reasons we have a problem with AAGW and our reactions to the debates here on BABB.

Exactly. Global warming skeptics were asked why they were so hostile towards global warming advocates. The advocates, not the theory. But, instead of replying to the question asked, you replied to a different one.

We're just going to have to disagree on this one DisInfo Agent. I think the discussion we've had here is entirely relevant to the OP. If there is animosity toward AAGW advocates, it is because they do not respond well to the actual evidence, but keep insisting on concensus. I see nothing wrong with using the actual evidence to illustrate the point. What happened on this thread is no different than the others, except that I took additional time to address the issues in greater detail - with the result that some people are now questioning why the AAGW supporters lack a strong response.

Really, I fail to see why you're in such a nitpicking tizzy about this. Threads are hijacked all the time. If this be a hijack at all, its a minor one. The OP was answered specifically on page 1. Then on the next few pages those issues have been illustrated with detailed arguments - still relevant to the topic of the original post.

Apparently an analysis of whether or not the flow of discussion on this thread is relevant to the OP is more important than addressing the evidence against AAGW.

[Moose]

If there is animosity toward AAGW advocates, it is because they do not respond well to the actual evidence, but keep insisting on concensus.

Which is a particularly ironic statement, considering Glom's last post in this thread.

... Doubly ironic when you consider this:

The fact that they keep on getting presented as rational and authoritative spokepeople on the environment is the most blood boiling thing of all. They are a group of extremists who won't stop until 99% of humanity lies dead and the remaining 1% are enslaved before their neomarxist elite. They are liars, conmen and terrorists.

Apparently an analysis of whether or not the flow of discussion on this thread is relevant to the OP is more important than addressing the evidence against AAGW.

I think the question in the OP is particularly relevant. Please stop avoiding it. Why does this issue raise such vitriol?

[Glom]

My feelings toward TWSNBN are not about this issue in particular. They are about everything from nuclear power to biotechnology. So it's not a specifically AAGW thing.

[Moose]

My feelings toward TWSNBN are not about this issue in particular. They are about everything from nuclear power to biotechnology. So it's not a specifically AAGW thing.

That doesn't make it any better, Glom.

The fact that they keep on getting presented as rational and authoritative spokepeople on the environment is the most blood boiling thing of all.

You might want to think hard about how much your position is weakened when you ask us to accept that statement of opinion (even if said of, say, the true Kung-Woo Masters like the ALF), while simultaneously pouring that much vitriol into a post.

No matter on how right you might be, I think "pot, kettle, black" and you've pretty much taken a few more giant steps back in terms of persuasiveness.

[Glom]

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=391157#391157
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=391174#391174
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=391180#391180
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=391282#391282

These are a few posts in this thread that address the OP. There are others.

But let's deal by examining the original premise. Ignoring me because I'm not important, has there been any hostility from sceptics more than advocates?

[Glom]

But have I ever dismissed their arguments out of hand simply on the basis that they wackos? Did I ask that it have any bearing on the conclusions of the scientific debate? Did I ever ask anyone to accept our word on the basis that Greenpeace say the opposite and they are wackos?

However, the point is well taken about seeming to be too extreme in emotion about things. I enjoyed making that post though. And can you blame me?

[Moose]

But let's deal by examining the original premise. Ignoring me because I'm not important, has there been any hostility from sceptics more than advocates?

Probably not. People are people, for better or worse. For me, the question becomes "why"? What drives this?

I'll have a look at your links, Glom, when I have more of a moment today. I find myself with only enough time (between test runs) to post-and-run for the most part.