8 ms·

> I don't know much about climate science ... I'm just skeptical that the rising CO2 level is as dangerous as it's made out to be. Respectfully, is this a mind

> I don't know much about climate science ... I'm just skeptical that the rising CO2 level is as dangerous as it's made out to be. Respectfully, is this a mindset you apply to other aspects of your life? Let's say you leased an apartment in a large building, and after an inspection, numerous structural engineers said the building was in danger of collapse. Would you say "I don't know much about engineering, but I'm skeptical it's that bad", or would you demand the building management take steps to correct the issues?

ythn 10y ago
Not quite the same. Climate scientists are notoriously bad at predicting consequences of climate change - kind of like how meteorologists are often bad at predicting the weather. Why is it okay to be skeptical of what meteorologists are predicting, but not okay to be skeptical of what climate scientists are predicting? It's one thing to be skeptical of sciences that have stood the test of time like civil engineering and quite another to be skeptical of climate science, whose models are being updated annually in response to the discovery of new variables. Note: I am not saying we should be climate change deniers, only that we should not blindly accept apocalyptic predictions as the gospel truth of what is going to happen to the planet if we fail to mitigate CO2.
- Sharlin 10y ago
  > Climate scientists are notoriously bad at predicting consequences of climate change [citation needed] Equating "weather" and "climate" is such an old and tired fallacious argument that you ought to be downvoted to oblivion just because of that.
  - ythn 10y ago
    I didn't equate them. The analogy is that weather is extremely complicated, so much so that meteorologists struggle to predict what will happen in the next 12 hours. If climate is an order of magnitude more complicated than weather, why should the predictions suddenly be much more accurate? My local meteorologists get the prediction right maybe 70% of the time. You're telling me the apocalyptic climate predictions approach 100% accuracy and that I have no room for skepticism?
    - JshWright 10y ago
      > If climate is an order of magnitude more complicated than weather, why should the predictions suddenly be much more accurate? For the same reason a doctor can't predict if an individual patient will have a heart attack, but a public health researcher can accurately predict the overall rate of heart attacks in a population. Forecasting weather is trying to predict a single event. That is by definition harder than predicting a trend of averages.
- lurker456 10y ago
  That's akin to demanding that all engineers accurately predict which piece of the roof will collapse first, where the pieces will hit the floor, how many pieces it will break up into and on which date. The overwhelming consensus of experts is that its going to have an enormous impact. It's still worth studying when, how and where its effects will materialize first but that does not excuse inaction.
  - ythn 10y ago
    > The overwhelming consensus of experts is that its going to have an enormous impact. How soon? Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" predicted apocalyptic consequences in as few as 10 years. 10 years later and it turns out the documentary had tons of erroneous assumptions. Oops. > That's akin to demanding that all engineers accurately predict which piece of the roof will collapse first, where the pieces will hit the floor, how many pieces it will break up into and on which date. If your model has poor predictive power, it's not a complete model. Engineers can accurately predict lots of things using standard models - for example whether a building will be able to withstand shear wind forces. Climate science cannot predict anything except "it will be disastrous with apocalyptic proportions at some non-deterministic point in the future" How is that a useful prediction beyond generating hype?
    - lurker456 10y ago
      >How soon? In a couple of lifetimes, which is still too soon, as reversing the trend will likely take far more effort. For a graphic description of how far we're venturing out of what we're used to as a species, see https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ > If your model has poor predictive power, it's not a complete model - for example whether a building will be able to withstand shear wind forces. To continue with the analogy, we know the building can't withstand shear wind forces. We just don't know exactly how and where the pieces will land.
      - ythn 10y ago
        Well, here's my prediction: climate change is real, but 100 years from now it won't turn out to be as apocalyptic as the experts claimed it will be. People will start reducing waste once they start seeing real consequences and technological solutions will emerge as exponentially more people start thinking about the problem each year. In the meantime, other factors will contribute to our downfall much faster than climate change ever could such as increasing societal divisiveness over politics, decline in nuclear families as the basic societal unit, selfishness, and abandonment of religion.
- JshWright 10y ago
  > Why is it okay to be skeptical of what meteorologists are predicting, but not okay to be skeptical of what climate scientists are predicting? Because you can predict that a slot machine will be a net profit maker for a casino without being able to predict the result of the next pull of the lever. Of course climate models are continually updated as technology and data improves (as are the models used in structural engineering). That is how science works. Historically, though, the mainstream (IPCC) models have actually performed quite well. https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- codecamper 10y ago
  You are right. What if the scientists have not predicted the full effects of too much CO2 in the atmosphere? Ever consider that one?
- saalweachter 10y ago
  Why is there still a pop culture cliche of weathermen being terrible at their job? Precipitation forecasts are usually accurate several days out and temperature forecasts are good a week or two out, in my experience. If I want to know if it's going to rain on Saturday I check the weather on Thursday and it's usually right. When there's a big storm comin', a local meteorologist does rolling updates with the latest data and it usually gives a consistent but evolving picture that matches up with what actually happens. Are people disappointed by this? What are you wanting out of your weathermen that you're not getting? I know the weatherman used to be a joke, back before satellites and computers, but I swear the cliche only survives as part of climate change denialism.
  - mark-r 10y ago
    Yes they're usually right about whether it's going to rain or not, but often they're completely wrong about how much it's going to rain. They can tell you whether tomorrow will be warmer or colder than today, but the exact temperature still eludes them. Since the whole climate debate is about a matter of degrees, it's natural to be skeptical.
    - saalweachter 10y ago
      I'm also pretty satisfied with the forecasts on those numbers as well, within the bounds of what is reasonable to forecast. During big events, snowstorms and hurricanes, the local meteorologist will break the area I'm in into ~7 regions and give guidance like 'zones 5-7 will get 3-6" of snow, zones 1&2 12-18"' or '3-4 inches of rain north of 84'.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ocschwar 10y ago
  Climate predictions made in 1989 versus today: https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n 3/full/nclimate3224.html?WT.feed_name=subjects_climate-sciences Climate models are actually better than meteorological models, but they predict things decades out.
orblivion 10y ago
Do they seem dodgy when you prod with questions? What are the engineers' motivations? Maybe they're exaggerating the threat to cover their ass? (That's just an example for your example. I don't have an issue with structural engineers or anything.)
shouldbworking 10y ago
I see your point. To me it's like numerous engineers are warning me that the temperature of the building is going up quickly. When I ask any of them what to do they say we should stop producing heat. I ask whats going to happen when the building gets hotter quickly and get 10 different answers. Somebody tells me the building has been much hotter in the past, but this is the fastest its heated up before. I ask if it's actually even bad that the building is getting hotter quickly and everyone says "Of course it is! It's never heated up this fast before!" I sit back and wonder why I should worry about this building heating up if it's been much hotter in the past, or if it's even a bad thing. I also wonder why none of the engineers suggested opening the windows instead of producing less heat. It happens that the building is currently at a historically low temperature, and raising it could make the building more comfortable for many inhabitants anyways
- yongjik 10y ago
  I have to admire the audacity of people arguing "The Earth has been hotter several million years ago," as if that's relevant at all. If a storm cuts off gas, electricity, water, internet, and paved road access to these people, and the government says "What's the problem? People have been living without them for most of history!", these same people would cry bloody murder (as anybody else would).
  - Frondo 10y ago
    In the 2016 election cycle, the libertarian candidate Gary Johnson gave a great answer to an interview question. Someone asked him about climate change, and his reply was (quoting from memory, so forgive me if I get the wording slightly off): "As I understand it, in 11 billion years, the sun will expand and swallow the earth, making the issue of climate change moot." Well, that's great because it's both true and absolutely nonsensical. And it's a great way to do absolutely nothing, policy-wise, for any problem. "What about police violence?" "As I understand it, in 11 billion years..." "What's your position on the student loan debt crisis?" "As I understand it, in 11 billion years..."
- rwmj 10y ago
  I think the problem is it's bad for humans on Earth, not that it's bad for life on Earth in the long run. For sure if all humans died off, all non-human life would be much better off.
hyperbovine 10y ago
I take his point about predictions not factoring in any sort of human mitigation, though. It's pretty obvious to me that inventing ways to fight or even reverse global warming (basically, geoengineering) is going to become the defining scientific and industrial challenge of our (grand-)childrens' era. Think solid-state electronics or genomics but on an entirely larger, more urgent scale. Pretty much the only thing keeping me hopeful these days is that we've scarcely even begun to really try and combat this problem.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  Mitigation isn't a big technological challenge per se. The big showstopper is the fear of the unknown unknowns; the remote possibility that despite our careful science and engineering, the cure ends up being worse than the disease. Because we only have one shot, and no "undo" button, large scale geoengineering will be put off for as long as possible.
- cardamomo 10y ago
  We need to start mitigation research now, not pass it along to our children's generation. The reason for today's urgency in addressing global warming is that previous generations kicked the can down the road to us.
- shouldbworking 10y ago
  Someone else in the thread mentioned releasing sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere to cause global cooling. To me, the notion of getting the entire planet to reduce their CO2 production is laughable. People are still sold as slaves and dying of starvation in some parts of the world. If global warming becomes a threat to humanity the only realistic solution is technological. It sounds like we already have the tech needed to cool the Earth as much as we want but we're still making a ton of noise about the impossible mission of controlling global carbon emissions.
  - 35bge57dtjku 10y ago
    So because someone simply mentioned using a single chemical to cool the atmosphere, you assume that it would work and that it would work at a large enough scale to fix everything? That sounds like a textbook case of believing everything you hear.
chongli 10y ago
Let's say you leased an apartment in a large building, and after an inspection, numerous structural engineers said the building was in danger of collapse. Would you say "I don't know much about engineering, but I'm skeptical it's that bad", or would you demand the building management take steps to correct the issues? I like this analogy because it highlights the wrongheadedness of climate change denial. There is a key difference, however: to get the dangerous apartment building fixed involves a reasonable number of people and a reasonable amount of money, no matter how big or how unsound the building is. Stopping -- let alone reversing -- climate change is orders of magnitude more difficult than that. It involves the coordination of billions of people in a task that goes against their short-term, individual interest. This is very hard to do [0]. [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/#coordination_problems https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-liberta...
- burke 10y ago
  While this is certainly true, it's unfortunate that we can't even have a productive conversation about this issue because we're apparently still stuck on disagreement over scientific consensus.
- pvnick 10y ago
  > Stopping -- let alone reversing -- climate change is orders of magnitude more difficult than that. It involves the coordination of billions of people in a task that goes against their short-term, individual interest. It is also extremely dangerous. Most folks engaging in the climate change debate are implicitly doing a cost-benefit analysis of action vs non-action (action implying governmental action). Non-action may involve rising temperatures and extreme weather. Or perhaps extreme whether has nothing to do with carbon emissions - consensus doesn't yet exist on that point. Or clean energy innovation like solar will become more cost effective and the problem will solve itself. Action on curbing emissions - e.g. carbon tax - could mitigate the problem. Or perhaps climate change inertia is too strong for anything less than complete ban of CO2 emissions to make any sort of dent. And instead something like a carbon tax could, for example, 1) slow down economies in developed nations, which means 2) lower purchasing power for people in those countries, leading to 3) fewer imports from developing countries, which further leads to 4) lower standard of living for folks in developing countries, including people starving to death. So "climate change denial" is a strawman. Skepticism is not a monolith. These are complex issues.
iand 10y ago
Those structural engineers benefit from the millions of repeatable experiments in engineering over the past few centuries. It is an extremely well understood subject. Climate science, by comparison, has no repeatable experiments on the scale of a planetary atmosphere and is in its infancy. No-one knows with certainty the impact of 400ppm vs 410ppm so they have to rely on speculative models, so it's right to treat climate science as less reliable than structural engineering.
- JshWright 10y ago
  While it's undeniable that structural engineering has been around longer than climate science, scepticism should be based on performance, not simply the age of the field. The mainstream (IPCC) models have quite accurately forecasted global temperatures and sea levels over the past couple decades. While climate science is a constant exercise in refinement (as all science should be), it's not a bunch of wild-ass guesses. I don't know of anyone who claims there is anything specifically meaningful about 400 vs 410pmm, it is simply a new record.
interfixus 10y ago
Respectfully, do you know more about climate science than shouldbworking?
- JshWright 10y ago
  Did I claim that anywhere?
  - interfixus 10y ago
    Did I claim that you did?

ythn 10y ago

Not quite the same. Climate scientists are notoriously bad at predicting consequences of climate change - kind of like how meteorologists are often bad at predicting the weather. Why is it okay to be skeptical of what meteorologists are predicting, but not okay to be skeptical of what climate scientists are predicting? It's one thing to be skeptical of sciences that have stood the test of time like civil engineering and quite another to be skeptical of climate science, whose models are being updated annually in response to the discovery of new variables. Note: I am not saying we should be climate change deniers, only that we should not blindly accept apocalyptic predictions as the gospel truth of what is going to happen to the planet if we fail to mitigate CO2.

Sharlin 10y ago
> Climate scientists are notoriously bad at predicting consequences of climate change [citation needed] Equating "weather" and "climate" is such an old and tired fallacious argument that you ought to be downvoted to oblivion just because of that.
- ythn 10y ago
  I didn't equate them. The analogy is that weather is extremely complicated, so much so that meteorologists struggle to predict what will happen in the next 12 hours. If climate is an order of magnitude more complicated than weather, why should the predictions suddenly be much more accurate? My local meteorologists get the prediction right maybe 70% of the time. You're telling me the apocalyptic climate predictions approach 100% accuracy and that I have no room for skepticism?
  - JshWright 10y ago
    > If climate is an order of magnitude more complicated than weather, why should the predictions suddenly be much more accurate? For the same reason a doctor can't predict if an individual patient will have a heart attack, but a public health researcher can accurately predict the overall rate of heart attacks in a population. Forecasting weather is trying to predict a single event. That is by definition harder than predicting a trend of averages.
lurker456 10y ago
That's akin to demanding that all engineers accurately predict which piece of the roof will collapse first, where the pieces will hit the floor, how many pieces it will break up into and on which date. The overwhelming consensus of experts is that its going to have an enormous impact. It's still worth studying when, how and where its effects will materialize first but that does not excuse inaction.
- ythn 10y ago
  > The overwhelming consensus of experts is that its going to have an enormous impact. How soon? Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" predicted apocalyptic consequences in as few as 10 years. 10 years later and it turns out the documentary had tons of erroneous assumptions. Oops. > That's akin to demanding that all engineers accurately predict which piece of the roof will collapse first, where the pieces will hit the floor, how many pieces it will break up into and on which date. If your model has poor predictive power, it's not a complete model. Engineers can accurately predict lots of things using standard models - for example whether a building will be able to withstand shear wind forces. Climate science cannot predict anything except "it will be disastrous with apocalyptic proportions at some non-deterministic point in the future" How is that a useful prediction beyond generating hype?
  - lurker456 10y ago
    >How soon? In a couple of lifetimes, which is still too soon, as reversing the trend will likely take far more effort. For a graphic description of how far we're venturing out of what we're used to as a species, see https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ > If your model has poor predictive power, it's not a complete model - for example whether a building will be able to withstand shear wind forces. To continue with the analogy, we know the building can't withstand shear wind forces. We just don't know exactly how and where the pieces will land.
    - ythn 10y ago
      Well, here's my prediction: climate change is real, but 100 years from now it won't turn out to be as apocalyptic as the experts claimed it will be. People will start reducing waste once they start seeing real consequences and technological solutions will emerge as exponentially more people start thinking about the problem each year. In the meantime, other factors will contribute to our downfall much faster than climate change ever could such as increasing societal divisiveness over politics, decline in nuclear families as the basic societal unit, selfishness, and abandonment of religion.
JshWright 10y ago
> Why is it okay to be skeptical of what meteorologists are predicting, but not okay to be skeptical of what climate scientists are predicting? Because you can predict that a slot machine will be a net profit maker for a casino without being able to predict the result of the next pull of the lever. Of course climate models are continually updated as technology and data improves (as are the models used in structural engineering). That is how science works. Historically, though, the mainstream (IPCC) models have actually performed quite well. https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
codecamper 10y ago
You are right. What if the scientists have not predicted the full effects of too much CO2 in the atmosphere? Ever consider that one?
saalweachter 10y ago
Why is there still a pop culture cliche of weathermen being terrible at their job? Precipitation forecasts are usually accurate several days out and temperature forecasts are good a week or two out, in my experience. If I want to know if it's going to rain on Saturday I check the weather on Thursday and it's usually right. When there's a big storm comin', a local meteorologist does rolling updates with the latest data and it usually gives a consistent but evolving picture that matches up with what actually happens. Are people disappointed by this? What are you wanting out of your weathermen that you're not getting? I know the weatherman used to be a joke, back before satellites and computers, but I swear the cliche only survives as part of climate change denialism.
- mark-r 10y ago
  Yes they're usually right about whether it's going to rain or not, but often they're completely wrong about how much it's going to rain. They can tell you whether tomorrow will be warmer or colder than today, but the exact temperature still eludes them. Since the whole climate debate is about a matter of degrees, it's natural to be skeptical.
  - saalweachter 10y ago
    I'm also pretty satisfied with the forecasts on those numbers as well, within the bounds of what is reasonable to forecast. During big events, snowstorms and hurricanes, the local meteorologist will break the area I'm in into ~7 regions and give guidance like 'zones 5-7 will get 3-6" of snow, zones 1&2 12-18"' or '3-4 inches of rain north of 84'.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ocschwar 10y ago
Climate predictions made in 1989 versus today: https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n 3/full/nclimate3224.html?WT.feed_name=subjects_climate-sciences Climate models are actually better than meteorological models, but they predict things decades out.

orblivion 10y ago

Do they seem dodgy when you prod with questions? What are the engineers' motivations? Maybe they're exaggerating the threat to cover their ass? (That's just an example for your example. I don't have an issue with structural engineers or anything.)

shouldbworking 10y ago

I see your point. To me it's like numerous engineers are warning me that the temperature of the building is going up quickly. When I ask any of them what to do they say we should stop producing heat. I ask whats going to happen when the building gets hotter quickly and get 10 different answers. Somebody tells me the building has been much hotter in the past, but this is the fastest its heated up before. I ask if it's actually even bad that the building is getting hotter quickly and everyone says "Of course it is! It's never heated up this fast before!" I sit back and wonder why I should worry about this building heating up if it's been much hotter in the past, or if it's even a bad thing. I also wonder why none of the engineers suggested opening the windows instead of producing less heat. It happens that the building is currently at a historically low temperature, and raising it could make the building more comfortable for many inhabitants anyways

yongjik 10y ago
I have to admire the audacity of people arguing "The Earth has been hotter several million years ago," as if that's relevant at all. If a storm cuts off gas, electricity, water, internet, and paved road access to these people, and the government says "What's the problem? People have been living without them for most of history!", these same people would cry bloody murder (as anybody else would).
- Frondo 10y ago
  In the 2016 election cycle, the libertarian candidate Gary Johnson gave a great answer to an interview question. Someone asked him about climate change, and his reply was (quoting from memory, so forgive me if I get the wording slightly off): "As I understand it, in 11 billion years, the sun will expand and swallow the earth, making the issue of climate change moot." Well, that's great because it's both true and absolutely nonsensical. And it's a great way to do absolutely nothing, policy-wise, for any problem. "What about police violence?" "As I understand it, in 11 billion years..." "What's your position on the student loan debt crisis?" "As I understand it, in 11 billion years..."
rwmj 10y ago
I think the problem is it's bad for humans on Earth, not that it's bad for life on Earth in the long run. For sure if all humans died off, all non-human life would be much better off.

hyperbovine 10y ago

I take his point about predictions not factoring in any sort of human mitigation, though. It's pretty obvious to me that inventing ways to fight or even reverse global warming (basically, geoengineering) is going to become the defining scientific and industrial challenge of our (grand-)childrens' era. Think solid-state electronics or genomics but on an entirely larger, more urgent scale. Pretty much the only thing keeping me hopeful these days is that we've scarcely even begun to really try and combat this problem.

semi-extrinsic 10y ago
Mitigation isn't a big technological challenge per se. The big showstopper is the fear of the unknown unknowns; the remote possibility that despite our careful science and engineering, the cure ends up being worse than the disease. Because we only have one shot, and no "undo" button, large scale geoengineering will be put off for as long as possible.
cardamomo 10y ago
We need to start mitigation research now, not pass it along to our children's generation. The reason for today's urgency in addressing global warming is that previous generations kicked the can down the road to us.
shouldbworking 10y ago
Someone else in the thread mentioned releasing sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere to cause global cooling. To me, the notion of getting the entire planet to reduce their CO2 production is laughable. People are still sold as slaves and dying of starvation in some parts of the world. If global warming becomes a threat to humanity the only realistic solution is technological. It sounds like we already have the tech needed to cool the Earth as much as we want but we're still making a ton of noise about the impossible mission of controlling global carbon emissions.
- 35bge57dtjku 10y ago
  So because someone simply mentioned using a single chemical to cool the atmosphere, you assume that it would work and that it would work at a large enough scale to fix everything? That sounds like a textbook case of believing everything you hear.

chongli 10y ago

Let's say you leased an apartment in a large building, and after an inspection, numerous structural engineers said the building was in danger of collapse. Would you say "I don't know much about engineering, but I'm skeptical it's that bad", or would you demand the building management take steps to correct the issues? I like this analogy because it highlights the wrongheadedness of climate change denial. There is a key difference, however: to get the dangerous apartment building fixed involves a reasonable number of people and a reasonable amount of money, no matter how big or how unsound the building is. Stopping -- let alone reversing -- climate change is orders of magnitude more difficult than that. It involves the coordination of billions of people in a task that goes against their short-term, individual interest. This is very hard to do [0]. [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/#coordination_problems https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-liberta...

burke 10y ago
While this is certainly true, it's unfortunate that we can't even have a productive conversation about this issue because we're apparently still stuck on disagreement over scientific consensus.
pvnick 10y ago
> Stopping -- let alone reversing -- climate change is orders of magnitude more difficult than that. It involves the coordination of billions of people in a task that goes against their short-term, individual interest. It is also extremely dangerous. Most folks engaging in the climate change debate are implicitly doing a cost-benefit analysis of action vs non-action (action implying governmental action). Non-action may involve rising temperatures and extreme weather. Or perhaps extreme whether has nothing to do with carbon emissions - consensus doesn't yet exist on that point. Or clean energy innovation like solar will become more cost effective and the problem will solve itself. Action on curbing emissions - e.g. carbon tax - could mitigate the problem. Or perhaps climate change inertia is too strong for anything less than complete ban of CO2 emissions to make any sort of dent. And instead something like a carbon tax could, for example, 1) slow down economies in developed nations, which means 2) lower purchasing power for people in those countries, leading to 3) fewer imports from developing countries, which further leads to 4) lower standard of living for folks in developing countries, including people starving to death. So "climate change denial" is a strawman. Skepticism is not a monolith. These are complex issues.

iand 10y ago

Those structural engineers benefit from the millions of repeatable experiments in engineering over the past few centuries. It is an extremely well understood subject. Climate science, by comparison, has no repeatable experiments on the scale of a planetary atmosphere and is in its infancy. No-one knows with certainty the impact of 400ppm vs 410ppm so they have to rely on speculative models, so it's right to treat climate science as less reliable than structural engineering.

JshWright 10y ago
While it's undeniable that structural engineering has been around longer than climate science, scepticism should be based on performance, not simply the age of the field. The mainstream (IPCC) models have quite accurately forecasted global temperatures and sea levels over the past couple decades. While climate science is a constant exercise in refinement (as all science should be), it's not a bunch of wild-ass guesses. I don't know of anyone who claims there is anything specifically meaningful about 400 vs 410pmm, it is simply a new record.

interfixus 10y ago

Respectfully, do you know more about climate science than shouldbworking?

JshWright 10y ago
Did I claim that anywhere?
- interfixus 10y ago
  Did I claim that you did?