[Kerrigan]

Global warming is blamed whenever a major storm hits.

Global warming sends hurricanes to make America pay for its refusal to pay lip service to environmental treaties.

Entire countries will be swallowed up by the sea because of bourgeoise excesses such as air flight.

Soothsayers such as Al Gore have pinpointed a flexibly elusive date for when the world melts down (9 years, as he claims).

Half of children lose sleep over it.

The chattering classes assume that their knowledge on the issue is all the result of modern investigation, and become self-righteous in the face of any sort of opposition.

Any variation in the weather (warm fronts, cold fronts, rain, snow) is blamed on global warming.

This isn't science, this is hysteria. In 10, 20, even 50 years from now, things will be much the same as they are now with regards to the environment, and hopefully those puritanical fear mongers who predicted global meltdown will look back and realize that they misused science to reach pre-determined conclusions which coalesce nicely with their political and ideological goals, much like the corrupt dogmatic clergy of old.

I doubt that will happen though, because the issue has evolved to take on a metaphysical aura, and people fear that by shunning their duty to appease the environment, they will be punished by vague natural forces.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Half of children lose sleep over it.

OK, now I'm impressed.

[Chuckit]

Whether or not many people misunderstand it or exaggerate things in their minds, why do you think you know better than the experts on the subject? I mean, perhaps you have a valid reason for discounting their findings and conclusions, but I don't see anything of the sort in your post. I just see, "Well, some crazy people hear voices, so there must actually be no such thing as a voice."

[Kerrigan]

Who are these "experts" who are so infallible that anything which contradicts their findings is dismissed as bunk?

And no, I don't have any understanding of climatological phenomenons, and nor do you. Nevertheless, politicians and activists are counting on us not knowing squat in order to feed us a doctrine of global warming which mustn't be disputed based on ideological grounds.

The result of this is that whenever scientists study other instances of the climate, which seem to be at odds with the "doomsday" claims of Al Gore et al, they are automatically dismissed as being connected to corporate interests.

Such phenomena as variations in the sun's activity, or an increase in the amount of ice in Antarctica, because they don't fit into the ignorant grand scheme of Global Warming, are dismissed or ridiculed, even though they are legitimate areas of scientific inquiry.

This is what happens when the ignorant masses get ahold of science, and it takes on a religious or pseudo-religious importance.

[Gossamer]

This part made me laugh.

A survey of 1,150 youngsters aged between seven and 11 found that one in four blamed politicians for the problems of climate change.

[Doofy]

I've still yet to hear from one of these hysterical knobheads exactly why a bit of global warming will be bad. Mmmm k?

[Doofy]

One in seven of those questioned by supermarket giant Somerfield said their own parents were not doing enough to improve the environment.

Easy.

Little Doof: Daddy, you need to be more green!
Doof: OK!

-- later that week --

Little Doof: Daddy, can I get a lift to footie practise?
Doof: No. It'll harm the environment, you'll have to walk.

Little Doof: Daddy, can I have a Wii?
Doof: No. They cost CO2 to manufacture and thus are evil.

Little Doof: Daddy, can I watch TV?
Doof: No. Watching the TV uses energy which harms the environment.

They'll soon get over their GW worries.

[Sherman Homan]

My favorite hysteria:
Another Ice Age?
Time Magazine
June 24, 1974
Another Ice Age? -- Monday, Jun. 24, 1974 -- Page 1 -- TIME

[Warren Pease]

Sounds like a question to me.

Are you sure it wasn't "Another Ice Age!" Nope, no it isn't.

Also, this article is a good example of bad research. The article was written in 1974 and they base all their cooling claims on data from 1972? Two years? Utterly laughable. But it seems to have caught quite a few people's imaginations.

Speaking of religion, the Bible probably has better climate data than that article.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I've still yet to hear from one of these hysterical knobheads exactly why a bit of global warming will be bad. Mmmm k?

I reckon that's because you're not actually paying any attention to them.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I've still yet to hear from one of these hysterical knobheads exactly why a bit of global warming will be bad. Mmmm k?

I doubt they'll be contacting you directly, but if you want to hear them, the reasons that a bit of global warming will be bad are out there.

Watch An Inconvenient Truth. Or watch PBS more often. Use Google. Then proceed to give more reasons why all the sources you find have a political or hippie agenda. Nevertheless, the reasons and the science are there, one can find them easily.

[BlueSky]

And Doofy, just to spark your interest or give you a hint, whatever...a "little bit of global warming" can lead to another ice age.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. <wince>

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I reckon that's because you're not actually paying any attention to them.

No, I reckon it's because the "it's bad" is about as hollow as it gets.

Originally Posted by BlueSky 

I doubt they'll be contacting you directly, but if you want to hear them, the reasons that a bit of global warming will be bad are out there.

Watch An Inconvenient Truth. Or watch PBS more often. Use Google. Then proceed to give more reasons why all the sources you find have a political or hippie agenda. Nevertheless, the reasons and the science are there, one can find them easily.

Post them here then.

Originally Posted by BlueSky 

And Doofy, just to spark your interest or give you a hint, whatever...a "little bit of global warming" can lead to another ice age.

Sweet. I like a bit of snow.

Admit it, it's all hysteria.

They got the right hysterical about terrorism.
They couldn't get the left too worked up about that.
So they got the left hysterical about global warming.

It'll all work out OK. Honestly. DO NOT PANIC.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Sweet. I like a bit of snow.

But you're also a vegetarian, and guess what doesn't grow in the snow?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

But you're also a vegetarian, and guess what doesn't grow in the snow?

I'm guessing you've never heard of hydroponics?

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Post them here then.

Nope. You go look for it. I want a full report on my desk by tomorrow morning.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm guessing you've never heard of hydroponics?

He's apparently from San Diego. I guarantee you he's heard of hydroponics.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I've still yet to hear from one of these hysterical knobheads exactly why a bit of global warming will be bad. Mmmm k?

Climate Change: How Global Warming Goes Against the Grain

The place where most of the world's people could first begin to feel the consequences of global warming may come as a surprise: in the stomach, via the supper plate.

That's the view of a small but influential group of agricultural experts who are increasingly worried that global warming will trigger food shortages long before it causes better known but more distant threats, such as rising sea levels that flood coastal cities.

The scale of agriculture's vulnerability to global warming was highlighted late last year when the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), an umbrella organization representing 15 of the world's top crop research centres, issued an astounding estimate of the impact of climate change on a single crop, wheat, in one of the world's major breadbaskets.

Researchers using computer models to simulate the weather patterns likely to exist around 2050 found that the best wheat-growing land in the wide arc of fertile farmland stretching from Pakistan through Northern India and Nepal to Bangladesh would be decimated. Much of the area would become too hot and dry for the crop, placing the food supply of 200 million people at risk.

"The impacts on agriculture in developing countries, and particularly on countries that depend on rain-fed agriculture, are likely to be devastating," says Dr. Louis Verchot, principal ecologist at the World Agroforestry Centre in Nairobi, Kenya.

Wheat, the source of one-fifth of the world's food, isn't the only crop that could be clobbered by climate change. Cereals and corn production in Africa are at risk, as is the rice crop in much of India and Southeast Asia, according to Dr. Verchot.

In a cruel twist of fate, most of the hunger resulting from global warming is likely to be felt by those who haven't caused the problem: the people in developing countries. At the same time, it may be a boon to agriculture in richer northern countries more responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate instability.

"With climate change, the agricultural areas in Canada, Russia and Europe will expand, while the areas suited for agriculture in the tropics will decline," Dr. Verchot says. "Basically, the situation is that those who are well off now will be better off in the future, and those who are in problems will have greater problems."

Agriculture is vulnerable to global warming because the world's most widely eaten grains — corn, wheat, and rice — are exquisitely sensitive to higher temperatures. In the tropics and subtropics, many crops are already being grown just under the maximum temperatures they can tolerate.

Over the 10,000 years that humans have farmed, temperatures have been remarkably stable, at current levels or slightly cooler, and plants are finely attuned to this climate regimen.

Although it doesn't work exactly the same for each crop, a rough rule of thumb developed by crop scientists is that, for every 1-degree Celsius increase in temperatures above the mid-30s during key stages in the growing season, such as pollination, yields fall about 10 per cent.

In the case of rice, researchers found the plants were most sensitive to higher nighttime temperatures. For crops in general, optimum growing conditions generally range from about 20 to 35 degrees, and then diminish sharply. At 40 degrees — temperatures that are now starting to occur in many areas — heat stress causes photosynthesis to shut down. Such high temperatures are starting to become more common, such as during the devastating heat wave in much of Europe in the summer of 2003 that killed tens of thousands.

And so on. Most of which I'm sure you already know, but it's a pretty decent article on the subject.

greg

[Snow-i]

kerrigan is absolutely right.

[paul w]

Have there ever been any studies to calculate the energy and resources need to replace crops grown in what is now arable land alternatively, as in hydroponics?

I would guess it's monumental. Even greenhouses would be a rather expensive adjustment.

[OldManMac]

quote:
__________________________________________________ _

kerrigan is absolutely right.

__________________________________________________ _

Why, because it says so on Faux News? The great majority of peer-reviewed, true scientific research, not the kind paid for by Exxon Mobil, shows that global warming is a real threat. With a global population of six plus billion, anyone who doesn't believe it obviously thinks that denial is a river in Egypt.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

And so on. Most of which I'm sure you already know, but it's a pretty decent article on the subject.

Yeah, blah blah blah. So everyone will have to eat coconuts instead of cornflakes for their brekkie. So what?

[ironknee]

call it a cult, call it liberal bias, call it anything but don't drag it down to religion

[Sherman Homan]

eco-theology

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

He's apparently from San Diego. I guarantee you he's heard of hydroponics.

Heh, I was just about to say the same thing. Except the only stuff I know that's grown with it isn't very nutritious.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

quote:
__________________________________________________ _

kerrigan is absolutely right.

__________________________________________________ _

Why, because it says so on Faux News? The great majority of peer-reviewed, true scientific research, not the kind paid for by Exxon Mobil, shows that global warming is a real threat. With a global population of six plus billion, anyone who doesn't believe it obviously thinks that denial is a river in Egypt.

No. I believe you to be a blind zealot who will take anyone at their word if they flash any sort of credential. You still have not produced any conclusive evidence to prove your point. All you can say is "Look here these guys think so." I'm sorry...i don't buy it. Show me hard fact. Can you?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No. I believe you to be a blind zealot who will take anyone at their word if they flash any sort of credential. You still have not produced any conclusive evidence to prove your point. All you can say is "Look here these guys think so." I'm sorry...i don't buy it. Show me hard fact. Can you?

How is the consensus of renowned experts in the field not relevant? What kind of better evidence are you looking for? Are you a climatologist with the ability to examine raw data?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No. I believe you to be a blind zealot who will take anyone at their word if they flash any sort of credential. You still have not produced any conclusive evidence to prove your point. All you can say is "Look here these guys think so." I'm sorry...i don't buy it. Show me hard fact. Can you?

WTF? Uhhhh...how about the last 15 years of climate science and publications? Atmospheric chemistry? Cloud physics? What do you consider fact then, wise guy? Do you want me to take you outside, point up at the sky and say "Look! Global warming!" and everything will become clear? How the hell else can one prove anything than by pointing at the countless studies of the leading scientists in the world and go "hey! they tested it, and it's true!"?!?!

Seriously. People who don't believe decades of intense scientific research, who inexplicably refuse to educate themselves on the realities around them, who continue to deny the facts even when they are proven wrong time and time again, who progressively shift their dissent from outright disbelief to partial agreement but dissent on the cause to agreement but dissent on our ability to do anything anyways...and they don't consider themselves to be a religion?



greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Seriously. People who don't believe decades of intense scientific research, who inexplicably refuse to educate themselves on the realities around them, who continue to deny the facts even when they are proven wrong time and time again, who progressively shift their dissent from outright disbelief to partial agreement but dissent on the cause to agreement but dissent on our ability to do anything anyways...and they don't consider themselves to be a religion?

The problem is that it all appears to be somewhat politically motivated.

All of the cures for global warming somehow seem to be banning the things that the left has always hated. Cars, industry, personal freedom, that sort of thing.

But here, at least, nobody who bangs on about global warming suggests any cures which the would contradict leftist philosophies. Nobody mentions all the CO2 immigrants create when they travel here or when they go visit their family back home. Nobody suggests that cutting aid to third world countries might actually help the problem by reducing the World's population.

Until such a point that I see lefties wanting to ban something which they've always championed in order to solve the problem, I'll continue to see this for what it appears to be: Lefties trying to impose their philosophies and control on everyone via stealth.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No. I believe you to be a blind zealot who will take anyone at their word if they flash any sort of credential. You still have not produced any conclusive evidence to prove your point. All you can say is "Look here these guys think so." I'm sorry...i don't buy it. Show me hard fact. Can you?

I don't have to show you "hard fact (sic)." As I've stated before, and will probably state again, despite blind zealots like you, the vast majority of the peer-reviewed science (which means that other scientists have reviewed it, which is different than science that has been bought by the likes of Mobil Exxon, which is not peer-reviewed) has formed a consensus that global warming is real and is a threat. Most people, except blind zealots such as yourself, don't have too much difficulty in believing that six billion people, consuming the resources they do, do indeed have an effect on the planet's ability to sustain itself. There's a reason that asthma rates are skyrocketing in the U. S. There's a reason that people have to wear masks in major cities in China. There's a reason that major rivers in India are full of filth, including human fecal matter. This happens because resources are finite, which is hard for arrogant people to comprehend, as it directly confronts their belief that world exists simply for them, to do with as they wish, without regard for the future, or for any of the consequences that others may suffer.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The problem is that it all appears to be somewhat politically motivated.

All of the cures for global warming somehow seem to be banning the things that the left has always hated. Cars, industry, personal freedom, that sort of thing.

But here, at least, nobody who bangs on about global warming suggests any cures which the would contradict leftist philosophies. Nobody mentions all the CO2 immigrants create when they travel here or when they go visit their family back home. Nobody suggests that cutting aid to third world countries might actually help the problem by reducing the World's population.

Until such a point that I see lefties wanting to ban something which they've always championed in order to solve the problem, I'll continue to see this for what it appears to be: Lefties trying to impose their philosophies and control on everyone via stealth.

There you go again, basing all your arguments on politics. The problem with that, of course, is that none of it is true, and it shows how little depth is in your arguments. Cars are not the problem; the pollution they cause is. The methods with which the parts are made is. The packaging not being reusable or properly disposable is. The untold number of diesel trucks and trains moving those parts is, and on it goes. We have to find ways to fix those issues, and despite your constant blatherings to the contrary, it has nothing to do with politics. What it does have to do with is stewardship (that means taking care of) of the earth's resources, and that has no more to do with "lefties" than the man on the moon. "Righties" are always blathering on about personal responsibility, but they conveniently ignore or forget that personal responsibility also includes making sure that the planet is left no worse off when you leave it. Personal freedom doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want, without regard to the consequences, and you can't simply ignore the fact that everything you do has a consequence for someone else. Unfortunately, some, with their blind hatred, zealotry, and ignorance, still think that denial is a river in Egypt.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

There you go again, basing all your arguments on politics. The problem with that, of course, is that none of it is true, and it shows how little depth is in your arguments. Cars are not the problem; the pollution they cause is. The methods with which the parts are made is. The packaging not being reusable or properly disposable is. The untold number of diesel trucks and trains moving those parts is, and on it goes. We have to find ways to fix those issues, and despite your constant blatherings to the contrary, it has nothing to do with politics.

If it's nothing to do with politics, then how come I can tell which side (left/right) people will vote for just by knowing their GW viewpoint?

[OldManMac]

You can't; you just think you can, based on your anecdotal experiences, which doesn't mean crap in the real world. If you'd pay attention, you'd notice that even "Righties," such as George W. Bush (who's no conservative, but whom you no doubt think is) are beginning to realize it's a problem. Whooosh.

[besson3c]

heads in sand (HiS): global warming doesn't exist, prove that it does!

normal people: take a look at the U.N. report, take a look at this, that, the other thing... read this article, there is scientific consensus there, check this out, etc.

HiS: well, what do THEY know?


What do YOU know? Where is YOUR proof that has been peer-reviewed?

Comon people, the debate is over. This is happening. Whether or not the left or right are more inclined to champion this issue is irrelevant. Whether or not some exaggerate its potential damage is irrelevant. The bottom line is it is happening, even the bloody Republicans in office are saying this now, what more do you want?

Reality: it is happening

Global warming is real.


Are we all on the same page now? If not, instead of whining about believers not showing their cards, it's time for you to show YOURS and come up with some undeniable proof of your own.

Hint: the consensus is that we are 90 - 99% sure that humans are contributing to the problem, so the onus is on you to not prove that there is an outside chance that the experts are wrong, because that margin of error is accounted for, but that it is MORE probable that we aren't contributing to the problem and that we can sit back and relax.

Looking at the melting ice caps alone, I'm assuming that the debate here is whether or not humans are to blame? I mean, heat does cause ice to melt... We all agree on that, right?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Global warming is real.

Nobody is arguing that.

What's being argued is:

1) Is it man made?
2) Can we do anything to stop it?
3) What exactly is bad about it?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

You can't; you just think you can, based on your anecdotal experiences, which doesn't mean crap in the real world.

I assure you, I can.

Perhaps you can't because you're a moron and you're under the impression that everyone else is also a moron?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The problem is that it all appears to be somewhat politically motivated.

All of the cures for global warming somehow seem to be banning the things that the left has always hated. Cars, industry, personal freedom, that sort of thing.

I haven't noticed that to be the case at all. The left has not always hated cars — most Democrats actually own the damn things. Henry Ford, the founder of the Ford Motor Company, actually ran for office as a Democrat. Similarly, while the left believes in asking a lot of industry (possibly an unfair amount, depending on your leaning), it has always been all in favor of industry in general. The personal freedom thing is completely out of left field (no pun intended). While you could argue the left opposes that, it's not blamed for global warming.

Besides that, the fact that science happens to be more in line with a political party you disagree with isn't a valid reason to reject science.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But here, at least, nobody who bangs on about global warming suggests any cures which the would contradict leftist philosophies. Nobody mentions all the CO2 immigrants create when they travel here or when they go visit their family back home.

Because that's actually not a major source of CO2 pollution?

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Until such a point that I see lefties wanting to ban something which they've always championed in order to solve the problem, I'll continue to see this for what it appears to be: Lefties trying to impose their philosophies and control on everyone via stealth.

So because the left ignore solutions when those solutions disagree with their preconceived ideas, you're going to show your superiority by doing the exact same thing?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I assure you, I can.

Perhaps you can't because you're a moron and you're under the impression that everyone else is also a moron?

Nice. That's a great way to make your argument, except for one thing: everyone here can see your blind hatred of anyone who disagrees with you. An open mind works just like a parachute; best when it's open. Have a nice day.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The left has not always hated cars — most Democrats actually own the damn things.

Yeah, come to Europe and check with the GW worriers here. The vast majority of them are rabid car haters.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Nobody is arguing that.

What's being argued is:

1) Is it man made?

The consensus is that it is, and even if you don't agree with this, ignoring the problem and keeping on the same path seems like a complete non-solution.

2) Can we do anything to stop it?

It might be too late, but why not try?

3) What exactly is bad about it?

Flooding, for one. You really should watch An Inconvenient Truth.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Nice. That's a great way to make your argument, except for one thing: everyone here can see your blind hatred of anyone who disagrees with you.

Actually it's just a mild dislike of you, not a hatred of everyone.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

An open mind works just like a parachute; best when it's open.

Yet you're the one closing your mind to the possibility that this whole thing is politically motivated.

Don't worry mate - I've seen this before - it's the standard leftie MO. Everyone with all the facts must agree with them... ...everyone who doesn't agree with them must either be ignorant of the facts or have a closed mind.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yeah, come to Europe and check with the GW worriers here. The vast majority of them are rabid car haters.

Tip: your own empirical evidence always makes for extremely weak grounds to make generalizations.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Actually it's just a mild dislike of you, not a hatred of everyone.



Yet you're the one closing your mind to the possibility that this whole thing is politically motivated.

Don't worry mate - I've seen this before - it's the standard leftie MO. Everyone with all the facts must agree with them... ...everyone who doesn't agree with them must either be ignorant of the facts or have a closed mind.

Are you Mojo2? Only he would be paranoid enough to link all scientists who agree with GW to a leftist political agenda.

This kind of reminds me of somebody (Railroader, I think) saying that the Wikipedia is leftist.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The consensus is that it is, and even if you don't agree with this, ignoring the problem and keeping on the same path seems like a complete non-solution.

We're human, we'll adapt to whatever conditions come our way.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It might be too late, but why not try?

OK, so we're going to stop giving aid to the third world countries and let them die out then? Because, you know, one of the main things about the 20th century which could have a bearing on GW is the World's population tripling.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Flooding, for one. You really should watch An Inconvenient Truth.

Flooding? No, I don't think so. A couple of metres sea level rise ain't going to make much of an impact.

If, of course, it rises at all - water has less volume than ice, so if the Arctic melts sea levels should actually go down.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

We're human, we'll adapt to whatever conditions come our way.

Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars it will take to displace billions of our global population living near a coast further away from the coast? We're talking goodbye NY harbor, etc.

The U.S. government couldn't even handle New Orleans, how do you think the world as a whole will fare in handling these sorts of problems within many different countries?

OK, so we're going to stop giving aid to the third world countries and let them die out then? Because, you know, one of the main things about the 20th century which could have a bearing on GW is the World's population tripling.

Huh? I thought you were saying that GW will have no effect on us?

Flooding? No, I don't think so. A couple of metres sea level rise ain't going to make much of an impact.

Where do you come up with a couple of meters? You're grasping at straws here, Doofy.

If, of course, it rises at all - water has less volume than ice, so if the Arctic melts sea levels should actually go down.

Water needs to go somewhere, it flows... where will it go? This melting is a gradual process, you know.

[besson3c]

Doofy: what do you base all your theories on, other than your gut feeling? I'm anxious to know... I've asked this question time and time again, and so far nobody has come up with a satisfying answer.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are you Mojo2? Only he would be paranoid enough to link all scientists who agree with GW to a leftist political agenda.

Go check who they're all funded by.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Doofy: what do you base all your theories on, other than your gut feeling?

8 hours a day of very heavy involvement in politics.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Go check who they're all funded by.

So you're saying that all sources - US or non-US, are all specifically funded by some sort of secret left-wing fund, but all of the sources that try to denounce global warming (or whatever has influenced you) are non-partisan?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

8 hours a day of very heavy involvement in politics.

Well, this must be the stopping point in this debate. I don't get the sense that anybody here is that interested in debating politics (WRT this topic in particular), but the scientific reality. The scientific reality is that GW is happening, and we are 90 - 99% sure that we are helping cause it.

Whatever happens in the political arena does not change these conclusions. Whomever takes the ball and runs with this in exaggerating the situation or trying to use it for personal gain doesn't affect these conclusions either.

Reality is reality, and this is the reality.