Republican EPA chiefs to Congress: Act on climate

[xBiffx]

You said that a theory is the best guess we have. A guess belittles the meaning of theory. Conjecture is not the grounds to build a theory, and thus they are not the same

Sorry, a theory is exactly that, a best guess that fits the observations and evidence we have on the matter. We have no idea whether it is indeed truly the way it works and there are ways that it could be found false. You obviously didn't read up much.

Worse is subjective. Are you trying to say that the rate of change in the ice age was the same as we are seeing in our climate now?

Absolutely, are you trying to say that most of the world dipping into sub freezing temperatures and then warming back up isn't significant? Yes it took thousands of years for that change but it was all more than a few degrees C. Depending on the data, we have seen a fraction of a degree of warming and its only be a century or so of looking at it. So I would say to ignore the last ice age is pretty ignorant.

The reason scientist are saying that man is the main cause, is because we dont see any other factor changing. The only variable we see that has changed are man made ones. It may be wrong, and we may have missed something, but it does not make that conclusion incorrect until we see the data to show that.

Again, victim of your own flawed observations, or perhaps, falling victim to the same confirmation bias that was already mentioned. You've disregarded any data, and idea that man might not be the cause in favor of your own hypothesis that man is the cause. few quick questions, has the earth ever warmed before? Before man's industrial revolution? Have you noticed that water vapor in the atmosphere is a larger contributor to warming? Point is, none of these prove anything, but by asking them we bring the hypothesis that man is the cause of warming into question. That's reason enough, via the scientific method, to revisit the hypothesis and tweak it.

You dont have any reason to believe they are or are not, so why do you believe 1 way over another?

Its true the earth has gone through many changes, but when has it gone through a change as quickly as we are seeing now? And what is the cause of that change if not man?

So you are going to double down on silliness? Again, we don't know for sure either way but because I think people who claim we know man is the cause are claiming this for political reasons I am wrong?

Define quick here. A fraction of a degree or even a couple degrees over the last hundred or so years is not quick, nor groundbreaking.

Also, you've apparently made up your mind that man is to blame so at this point I'm not sure what else will convince you that may not be the case.

 

[Jaskalas]

You have been duped again.

It clearly demonstrates the two warming periods of the 20th century, coupled with the warm cycles of the PDO and AMO.

The record, combined with the present pause, demonstrates that temperatures will not naturally rise again until the 2030s. It's the natural pattern that you should be capable of recognizing from that.

As for GISS, it is an outlier of all records with significant warming bias. I expect you to solely rely on it for everything. Is it no coincidence that James Hansen was in charge of GISS.

 

[fskimospy]

It clearly demonstrates the two warming periods of the 20th century, coupled with the warm cycles of the PDO and AMO.

The record, combined with the present pause, demonstrates that temperatures will not naturally rise again until the 2030s. It's the natural pattern that you should be capable of recognizing from that.

As for GISS, it is an outlier of all records with significant warming bias. I expect you to solely rely on it for everything. Is it no coincidence that James Hansen was in charge of GISS.

First, I'd like you to admit that when you actually analyze the two trends you would notice that they are in fact significantly different. There is a reason why that blog didn't try to do that analysis and it's because he's trying to trick you.

Second, this analysis looked at two separate data sets and found the same false statement in both.

Third, the earlier segment was a time of significantly increasing solar irradiance, which of course is a major factor in global temperatures. That was not present in the second time period.

Don't continue to cling to the lies that these people told you, open your eyes.

 

[realibrad]

Sorry, a theory is exactly that, a best guess that fits the observations and evidence we have on the matter. We have no idea whether it is indeed the way it works and there are ways that it could be found false. You obviously didn't read up much.




Absolutely, are you trying to say that most of the world dipping into sub freezing temperatures and then warming back up isn't significant? Yes it took thousands of years for that change but it was all more than a few degrees C. Depending on the data, we have seen a fraction of a degree of warming and its only be a century or so of looking at it. So I would say to ignore the last ice age is pretty ignorant.



Again, victim of your own flawed observations, or perhaps, falling victim to the same confirmation bias that was already mentioned. You've disregarded any data, and idea that man might not be the cause in favor of your own hypothesis that man is the cause. few quick questions, has the earth ever warmed before? Before man's industrial revolution? Have you noticed that water vapor in the atmosphere is a larger contributor to warming? Point is, none of these prove anything, but by asking them we bring the hypothesis that man is the cause of warming into question. That's reason enough, via the scientific method, to revisit the hypothesis and tweak it.



So you are going to double down on silliness? Again, we don't know for sure either way but because I think people who claim we know man is the cause are claiming this for political reasons I am wrong?

Again, define quick here. A fraction of a degree or even a couple degrees over the last hundred or so years is not quick, nor groundbreaking.

You are trying to use Guess and Theory to mean the same thing, and they dont. While both are not absolute truths, a Theory is far greater than a guess.

The issue is not has there been cycles before, because we know there has been. We have been in ice ages, and ages where the polar caps completely melted. The issue is 2 thing. Can man have measurable impacts on the climate? The 2nd is, what is causing the rate of change we are seeing.

Typically, when there is a rapid shift in the climate, we see an event around that time. We are not seeing that here. The models we have created are far from perfect. Most recently, we were told that the effects of particulates in the atmosphere were not fully quantified and it was having a very large cooling effect.

I did not disregard data, because I have not seen it. If you have data that shows that man does not impact the climate, then I'm happy to look at it. But, like I said before, almost every time we see a large shift in the climate, it happened around an event. So, if not man, what is causing the spike in temp. I understand that there are natural variations in the climate, but this shift appears to be at a rate that is not typical.

 

[xBiffx]

You are trying to use Guess and Theory to mean the same thing, and they dont. While both are not absolute truths, a Theory is far greater than a guess.

Theories are a best guess albeit a well substantiated one, its still a guess. You still want to argue what a theory is, fine, do it somewhere else. You are simply wrong and I'm done trying to convince you otherwise. At this point you are arguing semantics anyways.

I did not disregard data, because I have not seen it. If you have data that shows that man does not impact the climate, then I'm happy to look at it.

You are asking me to prove a negative. Can't be done.

But, like I said before, almost every time we see a large shift in the climate, it happened around an event. So, if not man, what is causing the spike in temp. I understand that there are natural variations in the climate, but this shift appears to be at a rate that is not typical.

So you are just going to ignore the natural shifts in climate because they don't fit your hypothesis? I mean, you pretty much just did. If that could be an explanation, then blaming man as a hypothesis seems flawed and must be revisited if you are keeping any semblance of science here.

Again, you failed to define what is quick. Instead you've changed your verbiage to typical. Ok, what is typical?

 

[realibrad]

Theories are a best guess albeit a well substantiated one, its still a guess. You still want to argue what a theory is, fine, do it somewhere else. You are simply wrong and I'm done trying to convince you otherwise. At this point you are arguing semantics anyways.



You are asking me to prove a negative. Can't be done.



So you are just going to ignore the natural shifts in climate because they don't fit your hypothesis? I mean, you pretty much just did. If that could be an explanation, then blaming man as a hypothesis seems flawed and must be revisited if you are keeping any semblance of science here.

Again, you failed to define what is quick. Instead you've changed your verbiage to typical. Ok, what is typical?

We have different words for a purpose. A guess is based off of very little data, where as a theory is the closest we can get to because we can never fully "know" something. The distance between the 2 words in this context is huge.

The hypothesis in this context is the rate of change. The historical evidence is relevant because it has established a base line. The whole issue of climate change is because a difference was seen from the historical trends, and the modern trends we see. So, in no way is anyone ignoring past events, because its the very thing that triggered the issue in the first place.

I don't see where you had previously asked me to define my subjective use of "quick", but Ill define it now. When you look at the trends for the past 1-2 thousand years, you see a large upswing.

 

[xBiffx]

I don't see where you had previously asked me to define my subjective use of "quick", but Ill define it now. When you look at the trends for the past 1-2 thousand years, you see a large upswing

Guess you missed this?

Define quick here. A fraction of a degree or even a couple degrees over the last hundred or so years is not quick, nor groundbreaking.

But anyways, look at the scales on those graphs, most importantly the temperature scale. 0.4C from average is nothing but slight and within the variation within that data. You've got swings from -0.8C to 0.4C. On that last graph there is a similar increase to what its shows now back between 800 and 1000, i.e. about a a 0.8 shift in the same time frame.

 

[realibrad]

Guess you missed this?



But anyways, look at the scales on those graphs, most importantly the temperature scale. 0.4C from average is nothing but slight and within the variation within that data. You've got swings from -0.8C to 0.4C. On that last graph there is a similar increase to what its shows now back between 800 and 1000, i.e. about a a 0.8 shift in the same time frame.

Can you find a time when we had another .8 increase over a 200 year span that was not preceded by a natural event?

You will have quick spikes and drops due to natural event, but those are usually contained in a window of far less than 100 years. Recently, we have had a large eruption which threw up particulates into the air in 2013, and that will have lingering cooling effects. We have also seen a surge in coal power in china and even places like Germany. Those coal particles will help cool the planet even more. The thing to do is to look at trends over 100 years so you smooth out the data with large numbers. Many get stuck when they look at yearly or decade trends, and natural variations may hide the trends there.

But, when you look at the data over the past 2000 years, you can see the spike in the past 200 relative historical trend when adjusted for natural events.

 

[Jaskalas]

First, I'd like you to admit that when you actually analyze the two trends you would notice that they are in fact significantly different. There is a reason why that blog didn't try to do that analysis and it's because he's trying to trick you.

We apparently differ on what constitutes a significant difference. By definition they are not identical, but I find them quite similar. It helps your argument that HadCRUT4 increases the warming trend over HadCRUT3.

What I agree to is that the effect of CO2 may be viewed in the difference between those two warming periods. When someone tells us current warming is unprecedented, they take the sum of both warming periods and pretend that our increase from the 19th century is entirely man-made. Instead of the 0.1c or 0.2c CO2 likely contributes.

Even more obvious, would be any warming between the beginning of this pause and 2030. If that proves itself significant then you win me over. Of course... it appears we'll be arguing over which record set to use. Perhaps we could agree to exclude the warmest (GISS) and coldest (RSS). Leaving HadCRUT and UAH.

 

[xBiffx]

Can you find a time when we had another .8 increase over a 200 year span that was not preceded by a natural event?

You will have quick spikes and drops due to natural event, but those are usually contained in a window of far less than 100 years. Recently, we have had a large eruption which threw up particulates into the air in 2013, and that will have lingering cooling effects. We have also seen a surge in coal power in china and even places like Germany. Those coal particles will help cool the planet even more. The thing to do is to look at trends over 100 years so you smooth out the data with large numbers. Many get stuck when they look at yearly or decade trends, and natural variations may hide the trends there.

But, when you look at the data over the past 2000 years, you can see the spike in the past 200 relative historical trend when adjusted for natural events.

So calling your hypothesis into question, giving you reason why is good be found false, and giving you a data point that goes against it means nothing? Guess we are done here. You continue to ignore scientific standards. Time will tell who is right but to start jumping to conclusions because you want take one data point/trend and ignore a similar one is pretty haphazard. Also, you can stop claiming your explanation is at all scientific.

You're putting a lot of credit to natural events of the past. As if we have complete knowledge of their effect on climate. Basically correlation does not imply causation is all I'm saying.

 

[realibrad]

So calling your hypothesis into question, giving you reason why is good be found false, and giving you a data point that goes against it means nothing? Guess we are done here. You continue to ignore scientific standards. Time will tell who is right but to start jumping to conclusions because you want take one data point/trend and ignore a similar one is pretty haphazard. Also, you can stop claiming your explanation is at all scientific.

You're putting a lot of credit to natural events of the past. As if we have complete knowledge of their effect on climate. Basically correlation does not imply causation is all I'm saying.

The whole thing I started with was how do you know the science is political. I don't see any reason to believe it is, and I don't see where you are coming from on that issue. Maybe I missed that in a previous post so if I did, please show me.

You also did not give me any data that relates to the main issue of trends. Scientist did not look at a 10 year trend and think there was an issue. What they did was look at the past 100-200 years and saw a upswing. Your data of natural variation only takes place over small periods of time, and usually around a natural event. The issue is that now, we dont see a natural event that would cause a rise in temps, and nothing that could even come close to holding that rising trend for 200 years. We do have data from man made effects, and they do seem to correlate. I do agree that correlation is not causation, and there is a lot more work to be done. However, the argument now is not if the earth is warming, its what is causing it to warm. The evidence is pointing to man made effects, which is making people question what man should do about it.

The data should always be questioned, and we are very far from having definitive quantification on the effects each variable plays on the climate. We also don't have absolute quantification on many things, and that does not preclude us from creating new technologies.

So, if you are arguing there should be skepticism when absolutes are thrown around, we agree. But the main issue I had and still have is your argument that climate science is not science, and is instead political. I asked you to explain how its not political, and we seem to now be talking about something very different.

 

[xBiffx]

But the main issue I had and still have is your argument that climate science is not science, and is instead political.

Then you are having issues with a strawman argument and I can't help that.

I never said climate science is not science. I said I think that people who claim climate science tells us that man is the cause for climate change are doing it for political reasons. One, because they are jumping to a conclusion based on ignoring or rejecting data/ideas/questions that don't fit their hypothesis while accepting things that do support their hypothesis.. And two, because that's not science at all. Scientific standards dictate that if you find evidence contradicting your hypothesis, you need to revisit and rethink said hypothesis. To do otherwise and call it science is just plain wrong.

 

[realibrad]

Then you are having issues with a strawman argument and I can't help that.

I never said climate science is not science. I said I think that people who claim climate science tells us that man is the cause for climate change are doing it for political reasons. One, because they are jumping to a conclusion based on ignoring or rejecting data/ideas/questions that don't fit their hypothesis while accepting things that do support their hypothesis.. And two, because that's not science at all. Scientific standards dictate that if you find evidence contradicting your hypothesis, you need to revisit and rethink said hypothesis. To do otherwise and call it science to just plain wrong.

IGBT made a post about how global warming was not science. I then asked how can you tell when its science vs political. You then responded to my response which I took as you supporting his view point. You then said that scientist were ignoring data that does not support that man is apart of global warming. I then ask you to provide me with the data that man is not, because you believe there is such data, and you come back saying you cant prove a negative.

If there is data that explains the change in the climate that does not include man, then I'm all for it. Show it to me, because I enjoy learning. Hell, I have typed quite a bit in the last 2 days talking to people on here, so I'm devoted to this place, and learning from here. But, if you believe that there is data to show that the cause of the past 200 years is due to something else, please provide it to me.

If you dont have data to refute the "biased" data, when how do you know the data is "biased"?

Give me data that explains the past 200 years, because historically its an abnormality.

 

[xBiffx]

IGBT made a post about how global warming was not science. I then asked how can you tell when its science vs political. You then responded to my response which I took as you supporting his view point. You then said that scientist were ignoring data that does not support that man is apart of global warming. I then ask you to provide me with the data that man is not, because you believe there is such data, and you come back saying you cant prove a negative.

If there is data that explains the change in the climate that does not include man, then I'm all for it. Show it to me, because I enjoy learning. Hell, I have typed quite a bit in the last 2 days talking to people on here, so I'm devoted to this place, and learning from here. But, if you believe that there is data to show that the cause of the past 200 years is due to something else, please provide it to me.

If you dont have data to refute the "biased" data, when how do you know the data is "biased"?

Give me data that explains the past 200 years, because historically its an abnormality.

You've basically asked me to prove a negative again. I can't prove what man isn't doing, nor should I have to. The onus is on those who say what man is doing to prove that hypothesis. I've made no hypothesis, I've only brought into question the hypothesis that man is the cause of climate change.

 

[realibrad]

You've basically asked me to prove a negative again. I can't prove what man isn't doing, nor should I have to. The onus is on those who say what man is doing to prove that hypothesis. I've made no hypothesis, I've only brought into question the hypothesis that man is the cause of climate change.

Now I'm confused on this thread too. Climate scientists observe an abnormal trend. Inherent in that is past trends not showing the same trend now. They look for natural causes to the trend that might explain the change, and cannot fine one. They then look at other causes of climate change, and see if those are changing. They find that the second are in fact changing, and they are changing because of man. The hypothesis then becomes that Man is the cause of the new trend, and not that man causes all changes. You then say that the hypothesis is wrong, because other data is being ignored.

I'm not asking you to disprove a negative, I'm asking you to support your belief that data is being ignored. If you are saying everything should be considered no absolutes then thats fine I guess, even if it seems pointless with out data. But you made the statement that data "was" and not "could" be ignored. Where does your belief come from?

 

[xBiffx]

They find that the second are in fact changing, and they are changing because of man.

That's the crux of the issue. How do you know this to be true?

And regarding looking at the overall trend to see what else might be causing it, again, correlation does not imply causation. Even if you see the trend change at a given event, just recognizing that change happened at the same time as some event does not necessarily mean the event is what caused the change. There are many other possibilities that could account for the change in the trend, that is what I am talking about when people are ignoring things. They are ignoring the possibility that it could be something else and then jumping to a conclusion despite that lingering detail.

 

[realibrad]

That's the crux of the issue. How do you know this to be true?

And regarding looking at the overall trend to see what else might be causing it, again, correlation does not imply causation. Even if you see the trend change at a given event, just recognizing that change happened at the same time as some event does not necessarily mean the event is what caused the change. There are many other possibilities that could account for the change in the trend, that is what I am talking about when people are ignoring things. They are ignoring the possibility that it could be something else and then jumping to a conclusion despite that lingering detail.

I meant there are factors that we correlate with climate change, such as CO_2 and that man is increasing those levels. I agree its a correlation argument, but its that because we have no other explanation.

But are we not in spaghetti monster territory if the argument is that we are "ignoring" other possibilities that have yet to be observed? It would be one thing, if there was a model that explained the changes as natural, but I don't know of one. I agree there may be one out there, or that we may find that Man has nothing to do with climate change. But as of now, the data seems to correlate with man being the main factor as to the larger than normal fluctuation. I do think that we need to get much more data to even know if man is the deciding factor or not, but all signs so far seem to say that man is contributing. This is where the Law of Large Numbers would come into play, to try and smooth out those variables.

 

[xBiffx]

I meant there are factors that we correlate with climate change, such as CO_2 and that man is increasing those levels. I agree its a correlation argument, but its that because we have no other explanation.

No I think there are other potential explanations but the man made cause fits the observations (and a lot of times their agenda/politics) so that's as far as it goes. Some then want to jump right into makes changes to stop or reverse that. I think we need to hold up on that part.

But are we not in spaghetti monster territory if the argument is that we are "ignoring" other possibilities that have yet to be observed? It would be one thing, if there was a model that explained the changes as natural, but I don't know of one. I agree there may be one out there, or that we may find that Man has nothing to do with climate change. But as of now, the data seems to correlate with man being the main factor as to the larger than normal fluctuation. I do think that we need to get much more data to even know if man is the deciding factor or not, but all signs so far seem to say that man is contributing. This is where the Law of Large Numbers would come into play, to try and smooth out those variables.

Don't get me wrong, its worth further investigation to find out if man is the cause or if its something else. But where I take issue is when people use the "man is the a cause" argument, claim its absolutely supported by science, and then try to enforce some sort of "fix" that is quite often rooted in some other agenda.

It would be rather stupid to go through the motions to try to reverse something that we then find out we had nothing to do with. That and the fact that we don't even know yet if we can reverse anything. We can barely agree on if it exists to begin with.

 

[realibrad]

No I think there are other potential explanations but the man made cause fits the observations (and a lot of times their agenda/politics) so that's as far as it goes. Some then want to jump right into makes changes to stop or reverse that. I think we need to hold up on that part.



Don't get me wrong, its worth further investigation to find out if man is the cause or if its something else. But where I take issue is when people use the "man is the a cause" argument, claim its absolutely supported by science, and then try to enforce some sort of "fix" that is quite often rooted in some other agenda.

It would be rather stupid to go through the motions to try to reverse something that we then find out we had nothing to do with. That and the fact that we don't even know yet if we can reverse anything. We can barely agree on if it exists to begin with.

I am not for a lot of the "fixes" because those are political. Germany wanting to do away with nuclear power, tried to force its economy into "green" power. Turns out, green cant make enough power, so what did they do... they built more coal plants.

But, right now the data points to man as the reason the trend is more aggressive than past trends. The total net effect we will likely never fully know, but that is true about everything. I don't think the science is being corrupted enough to measurable levels, but the "solutions" that are purposed are quite political.

Again, victim of your own flawed observations, or perhaps, falling victim to the same confirmation bias that was already mentioned. You've disregarded any data, and idea that man might not be the cause in favor of your own hypothesis that man is the cause.

So, are at least agreed that I'm not ignoring data?

 

[xBiffx]

So, are at least agreed that I'm not ignoring data?

I don't think you, specifically, have ignored data. Actually, quite the contrary. :thumbsup:

 

[Jaskalas]

I meant there are factors that we correlate with climate change, such as CO_2 and that man is increasing those levels. I agree its a correlation argument, but its that because we have no other explanation.

Exiting the Little Ice Age is a fine explanation. We're not even on par with the previous interglacial until sea levels rise another 3-5 meters and West Antarctica collapses.

The Chinese have a 2k year study and it has no hockey stick.

Unprecedented is a reach too far. For the CO2 explanation, we'd need to start seeing some serious upward momentum while the PDO and AMO are cooling down. So long as the pause continues, CO2 is falsified as the driver behind 20th century changes.

 

[realibrad]

Exiting the Little Ice Age is a fine explanation. We're not even on par with the previous interglacial until sea levels rise another 3-5 meters and West Antarctica collapses.

The Chinese have a 2k year study and it has no hockey stick.

Unprecedented is a reach too far. For the CO2 explanation, we'd need to start seeing some serious upward momentum while the PDO and AMO are cooling down. So long as the pause continues, CO2 is falsified as the driver behind 20th century changes.

The previous sea levels you are talking about cannot compare to today. The earth was receiving a lot more solar energy that helped melt ice that caused sea level rise. As the ice has melted in the polar regions, it allowed the earth to absorb more solar energy. The trend we saw then was due to natural effects. The trend we see now does not fit with the variables we saw then, so not really apples to apples.

As for CO2 causing a non nonlinear rise in temps, you are correct. That measurement is going to have to be over a very long span of time, because of natural variations. The models did not include many things that have very large effects on the climate. Turns out the oceans can absorb far more energy and CO2 than was first realized. Atmospheric particulates are also deflecting far more solar energy than first realized. Those 2 things have caused the models to make some pretty big miscalculations.

 

[Paul98]

Exiting the Little Ice Age is a fine explanation. We're not even on par with the previous interglacial until sea levels rise another 3-5 meters and West Antarctica collapses.

The Chinese have a 2k year study and it has no hockey stick.

Unprecedented is a reach too far. For the CO2 explanation, we'd need to start seeing some serious upward momentum while the PDO and AMO are cooling down. So long as the pause continues, CO2 is falsified as the driver behind 20th century changes.

As long as trade winds are circulating the deep ocean and the surface water, you will continue to get minimal to no rise in surface, and air temperature. You seem to think this somehow disproves MMGW. Yet it's the simple fact that warming the ocean takes a lot more energy than warming the air. Thus when you have the sea surface not being mixed much with the deep ocean you will get a much higher rise in temperatures than when the deep sea is coming to the surface. You have the air warming the ocean and the ocean cooling the air, the ocean circulating so the surface won't get too warm and can continue to cool the air. Once this changes again sea surface and air temperatures will rise quickly due to the warmed water staying on top.

 

[Paratus]

As long as trade winds are circulating the deep ocean and the surface water, you will continue to get minimal to no rise in surface, and air temperature. You seem to think this somehow disproves MMGW. Yet it's the simple fact that warming the ocean takes a lot more energy than warming the air. Thus when you have the sea surface not being mixed much with the deep ocean you will get a much higher rise in temperatures than when the deep sea is coming to the surface. You have the air warming the ocean and the ocean cooling the air, the ocean circulating so the surface won't get too warm and can continue to cool the air. Once this changes again sea surface and air temperatures will rise quickly due to the warmed water staying on top.

The extended solar minimum throughout the 00's also reduced the energy in the system as compared with earlier solar cycles.

Solar output started dropping around 2001-02 and dropped lower, longer than the last two cycles.

That coupled with the deep ocean circulation seems like we should have seen a cooling trend and of course we haven't. Even the "skeptics" says its paused when look at the troposphere data.

 

[shira]

I don't deny global warming, I simply won't do anything about it because I hate people like the OP. The greatest concern for people like him is scoring points against his enemy, not in actually promoting change. If he can solve the problem, that's secondary. It's slamming "righties" that really gives him a chubby.

I'll let the water keep running while brushing my teeth in his honor.

You hate people like me? No, you hate just about everyone. You're a boiling cauldron of hate. Yet you dishonestly pretend that the discussions on ATPN you're interested in are about "promoting change." What nonsense. How many threads started by Boomerang and Michael1980 and the rest of the ultra-right trolls do you refuse to participate in, Mr. Change?