Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[R-T-B]

Like, obsessing over temperatures that were doing massive changes before humans or any of our tech even existed and ignoring all the chemicals that humanity pours into ground, rivers and oceans that for a fact affect us in far shorter term.

The accelerated CO2 emission of humanity is the chief arguement here dude.

 

[bug]

Because the Jet Stream literally went from one extreme to another?

It's quotes like this that make me happy I didn't have kids, because frankly, how can we not be fucked with attitudes like that?

In this particular case, the statement that jet stream has moved south to Texas because the ice caps have melted is downright idiotic. The subtropical jet stream has always blown over Texas, there was no change there. He was just making up stuff to support his point of view. It's just my job (or will) to set everyone straight on the subject, so I just keep my distance.

 

[StrayKAT]

You keep fooling yourself with those arguments, its clear you choose to blind yourself, nothing amyone says will change that. Just dont try to fool others with it because that just looks sad and infinitely stupid.

There is only one reason to deny climate change and that is because people are invested in something they might lose. That alone should tell you enough and if you cannot see that, all hope is lost.

That isn't always why. It's a good idea to be wary of anyone who wants to criminalize others for vague reasons. That's rule 1 in simply being a damn human being. lol. Or maybe you forgot that? Asians and Europeans especially have a knack for forgetting and seemingly allowing others to exercise power and special privileges over them...for no damn reason at all. It's an unhealthy relationship. Even when they dropped the abuses of nobility, they still clamored after authoritarians and politburos, for some reason.

Unless you're not outright harming and killing people, there's no reason to feel such guilt in one's life. Be it poaching laws circa 1256 AD or carbon tax schemes circa 2017. And if you're easily villainized for simply questioning the "Why" of such things, that's definitely a red flag. It may be that there's validity to a lot of the concerns, but not even being able to question things is where I call shenanigans.

 

[RejZoR]

The accelerated CO2 emission of humanity is the chief arguement here dude.

What was causing "accelerated CO2 emissions" thousands of years ago when same global warming events occurred repeatedly? Someone was playing with time machine again lol

Whoops! XD

We just happen to be in the warming period of Earth. That's like freaking out about summer during a late winter...

 

[R-T-B]

What was causing "accelerated CO2 emissions" thousands of years ago when same global warming events occurred repeatedly? Someone was playing with time machine again lol

View attachment 104887

Whoops! XD

We just happen to be in the warming period of Earth. That's like freaking out about summer during a late winter...

The carbon cycle of the earth obviously. This isn't a denied principle by climate change warning types. It even has a neat name. But it is argued the recent changes by man are pushing the carbon cycle to happen much quicker and more severely.

The difference being this fairly massive recent acceleration is measurable in a few decades. Your scale requires a unit scale of THOUSANDS of years.

Oopsie?

 

[RejZoR]

Lol, no it doesn't. You may observe slight changes, but you can't change the planetary shifts that are affected by freaking forces of the universe (sounds a bit poetic, but it's true). Earth will do its cycles whether we're here or not. It's been doing them for thousands of years even when nothing was affecting Earth. And it'll be doing them even when we are affecting it. Earth is a huge machine, our presence is a mere inconvenience for it. Imagine trying to stop a bulldozzer using 1 ton of pebbles. It'll affect it, but it'll just keep on going. That's how much effect we have on Earth.

 

[R-T-B]

You may observe slight changes

Look at your own graphs recent time acceleration. Trust me when I say you don't want to magnify that last 10 years.

The recent changes are not "slight" and the fact is we are acting as a catalyst to your normal cycle, accelerating it far beyond natural, and that can and should scare the shit out of everyone.

sounds a bit poetic, but it's true

Poetic it may be, true it is not.

Thanks for making me pull out my inner yoda.

 

[StrayKAT]

Lol, no it doesn't. You may observe slight changes, but you can't change the planetary shifts that are affected by freaking forces of the universe (sounds a bit poetic, but it's true). Earth will do its cycles whether we're here or not. It's been doing them for thousands of years even when nothing was affecting Earth. And it'll be doing them even when we are affecting it. Earth is a huge machine, our presence is a mere inconvenience for it. Imagine trying to stop a bulldozzer using 1 ton of pebbles. It'll affect it, but it'll just keep on going. That's how much effect we have on Earth.

People could just watch a simple "Early Earth" documentary and realize just how badass the Earth is. Massive asteroid bombardment for millions of years, molten surfaces throughout the planet, eons long Ice Ages, super volcanoes going off every day, no atmospheric protections, etc., etc.. It might be the most arrogant statement of Man yet that he's somehow capable of destroying this thing, with his little toy trucks. Not to say there aren't climate changes, but to think it's all manmade is the issue. Or better yet, thinking it can be solved by man as well.. that's arrogant too. All of these rollback efforts wouldn't make a dent.

 

[RejZoR]

It's also funny how people don't seem to grasp how rejecting the global warming BS and still supporting ecological technologies can be done by one single person (me). I can reject global warming nonsense and still support electric cars that are charged from renewable power sources. Because rejecting global warming BS doesn't mean I don't understand what comes out of a tail pipe of a car or from factory chimneys... I'm not one of those idiots pointing at CO2, I'm the one pointing out what all the other actually toxic chemicals come out of it which no one else seems to care about, coz they are too busy blaming cow farts and some exhaled air...

 

[StrayKAT]

It's also funny how people don't seem to grasp how rejecting the global warming BS and still supporting ecological technologies can be done by one single person (me). I can reject global warming nonsense and still support electric cars that are charged from renewable power sources. Because rejecting global warming BS doesn't mean I don't understand what comes out of a tail pipe of a car or from factory chimneys... I'm not one of those idiots pointing at CO2, I'm the one pointing out what all the other actually toxic chemicals come out of it which no one else seems to care about, coz they are too busy blaming cow farts and some exhaled air...

The more energy sources, the better. Anyone who would be against something so simple and logical I'd call suspect too. In all cases, I'm wary of any who have something to profit on either side...especially the overly dismissive ones.

The world isn't as full of bandits outright pillaging towns anymore.. but the bandits still exist. They're just smarter and more insidious. And get YOU to part with your money willingly.

 

[Vayra86]

That isn't always why. It's a good idea to be wary of anyone who wants to criminalize others for vague reasons. That's rule 1 in simply being a damn human being. lol. Or maybe you forgot that? Asians and Europeans especially have a knack for forgetting and seemingly allowing others to exercise power and special privileges over them...for no damn reason at all. It's an unhealthy relationship. Even when they dropped the abuses of nobility, they still clamored after authoritarians and politburos, for some reason.

Unless you're not outright harming and killing people, there's no reason to feel such guilt in one's life. Be it poaching laws circa 1256 AD or carbon tax schemes circa 2017. And if you're easily villainized for simply questioning the "Why" of such things, that's definitely a red flag. It may be that there's validity to a lot of the concerns, but not even being able to question things is where I call shenanigans.

Www.ww.w.w what?! Does not compute... lol.

Sorry for coming out hard on you here but... this must be said. See this is YOUR point of view and it sounds American - in all the glory of its ignorance. The country with the highest homicide rates in the world that still sells guns freely, no matter how many schools and kids get shot up 'because muh Freedom and muh constitutional rights, durrr'. Just one example of its infinite stupidity and hypocrisy, but worth a mention because it signifies your self destructive culture. Its not about criminalization of ANYTHING and its not even about politics or who rules what or over who. Its not even about individuals. Its about a change in our approach to every system we have. If you reduce the issue to 'some tax or additional pressure on the little man' that just confirms how short sighted you are. And yes, I'm very sorry, but if you are still disputing the obvious today, you fall in the category of Flat-Earthers and anti-vaccination idiots who deserve to be quarantined and shot off to Mars or something.

What surprises me the most is you pulling a Godwin out of there, and it only deserves the above response.

Oh man. I need to stay out of this thread. It summarizes everything that's wrong with people today.

Even if there was the slightest chance of global warming affecting our everyday lives and us having a chance at influencing that future, why would you NOT agree with trying to do what we can on the largest possible scale... The answer is obvious, but still no one wants to answer it because its an inconvenient truth. Al Gore dubbed it perfectly. The only reason these models and predictions are disputed is because people are afraid they can't do what they've been doing in the same, wasteful way. And yes, any sort of change will take effort, it will cost you a portion of your wealth possibly (but even that is questionable!) and perhaps you will lose some comforts you used to have. The alternative though...? There is none. When this planet becomes even slightly less habitable, the amount of chaos that flows from it will spark conflict everywhere. The ramifications of even the slightest of changes in the timeframes we see them happening in today, are global, they hit everyone, and they will be merciless. Forget the climate itself, consider what people will do, first, when all certainties they had are suddenly gone.

Face reality. Until then, I'm out of here...

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It's always been more extreme weather. Anyone who changes the narritave over one year is foolish.

Which was incorrect (Curry's paper showed that years ago). The excessive greenhouse gases causes there to be more thermal energy in the atmosphere. That doesn't necessarily translate to weather of any kind because weather requires other things (like water vapor and variations in temperature). If it's always hot everywhere, there won't be much in the way of wind (including hurricanes, typhoons, and tornadoes). If it's always dry heat everywhere, there won't be much in the way of extra precipitation. "Extreme weather" is the major climate related prediction that put the cart before the horse. Weather models are notoriously inaccurate. Applying more heat to them only begets more notoriously inaccurate outcomes.

What was causing "accelerated CO2 emissions" thousands of years ago when same global warming events occurred repeatedly? Someone was playing with time machine again lol

View attachment 104887

Whoops! XD

We just happen to be in the warming period of Earth. That's like freaking out about summer during a late winter...

That's from ice core data. Let me add observed data since then for you:

It's not 100s of thousands of years anymore (passed that up a long time ago). CO2 hasn't been this high in over a million years.

People could just watch a simple "Early Earth" documentary and realize just how badass the Earth is. Massive asteroid bombardment for millions of years, molten surfaces throughout the planet, eons long Ice Ages, super volcanoes going off every day, no atmospheric protections, etc., etc.. It might be the most arrogant statement of Man yet that he's somehow capable of destroying this thing, with his little toy trucks. Not to say there aren't climate changes, but to think it's all manmade is the issue. Or better yet, thinking it can be solved by man as well.. that's arrogant too. All of these rollback efforts wouldn't make a dent.

Earth is a non-sentient mass. Conservation of mass dictates that it will always be around in one state or another. Sentient life on Earth, however, is quite delicate. We're experiencing Earth's sixth mass extinction event now. Mammilian populations have declined by 80% since 1900 with few exceptions (mice, dogs, cats, humans, rats, raccoons, etc.)

 

[R-T-B]

Which was incorrect (Curry's paper showed that years ago). The excessive greenhouse gases causes there to be more thermal energy in the atmosphere.

Overall yes. But El Nino and El Nina conditions are much more prevalent now, and those in general lead to more severe weather in pacific coast regions and nearby.

I may have been biased there as admitedly, I live in one of those regions.

Earth is a non-sentient mass. Conservation of mass dictates that it will always be around in one state or another. Sentient life on Earth, however, is quite delicate. We're experiencing Earth's sixth mass extinction event now. Mammilian populations have declined by 80% since 1900 with few exceptions (mice, dogs, cats, humans, rats, raccoons, etc.)

Also this. No one is talking about literally destroying the earth. Even all-out nuclear war could not do that, guys. We are talking about ending life on earth as we know it.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Supposedly clever people still think man made global warming is a thing, how arrogant are you for thinking we have any kind of say on the seasons of this planet we inhabit?

Hottest summer since records began ummmm 200 years ago compared to 15 billion years since the conception of the universe, but hey, 200 years of industrial revolution have destroyed a planet that has seen more extreme weather conditions in a millenia than you could ever dream of

 

[StrayKAT]

Www.ww.w.w what?! Does not compute... lol.

Sorry for coming out hard on you here but... this must be said. See this is YOUR point of view and it sounds American - in all the glory of its ignorance. The country with the highest homicide rates in the world that still sells guns freely, no matter how many schools and kids get shot up 'because muh Freedom and muh constitutional rights, durrr'. Just one example of its infinite stupidity and hypocrisy, but worth a mention because it signifies your self destructive culture. Its not about criminalization of ANYTHING and its not even about politics or who rules what or over who. Its not even about individuals. Its about a change in our approach to every system we have. If you reduce the issue to 'some tax or additional pressure on the little man' that just confirms how short sighted you are. And yes, I'm very sorry, but if you are still disputing the obvious today, you fall in the category of Flat-Earthers and anti-vaccination idiots who deserve to be quarantined and shot off to Mars or something.

What surprises me the most is you pulling a Godwin out of there, and it only deserves the above response.

Oh man. I need to stay out of this thread. It summarizes everything that's wrong with people today.

Even if there was the slightest chance of global warming affecting our everyday lives and us having a chance at influencing that future, why would you NOT agree with trying to do what we can on the largest possible scale... The answer is obvious, but still no one wants to answer it because its an inconvenient truth. Al Gore dubbed it perfectly. The only reason these models and predictions are disputed is because people are afraid they can't do what they've been doing in the same, wasteful way. And yes, any sort of change will take effort, it will cost you a portion of your wealth possibly (but even that is questionable!) and perhaps you will lose some comforts you used to have. The alternative though...? There is none. When this planet becomes even slightly less habitable, the amount of chaos that flows from it will spark conflict everywhere. The ramifications of even the slightest of changes in the timeframes we see them happening in today, are global, they hit everyone, and they will be merciless. Forget the climate itself, consider what people will do, first, when all certainties they had are suddenly gone.

Face reality. Until then, I'm out of here...

The "largest possible scale" is impossible. The world is built up of nations. It's not a global society that carries ANYTHING out on a very large scale. And thus, the largest possible scale in the current circumstances just lays the burden on one: The Americans, who you already show to be dismissive towards right off the bat. You want the livelihood and hard work of it's citizens, even while calling them ignorant at the same time. This doesn't bode well. This goes for the UN and Nato and every other supposed global effort. It's just shorthand for "Get the stupid Americans to pay for it."

That said, we'll probably just help out with environmental disasters. That's about the best you can ask for them to do willingly.

Americans aside, things like the Paris Treaty especially weren't good on a large scale no matter how you put it. You don't even have to mention America: It actually created obstacles for smaller/"third world" countries from ever reaping the benefits of their own industrial revolutions. Now that Europe and America and parts of Asia had their own, it was going to snuff out anyone else's chances of achieving the same. So much for actually improving things. It'd inadvertently keep certain countries perpetually in the dark ages.. or at best, make them overly dependent on existing power sources from the bigger countries.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

I'm sorry but I cannot believe the levels of ego-driven arrogance in this thread.
Evidence for what IS happening doesn't come from one or two scientific fields or observed measurements.
Just because you don't understand the evidence of something or can't fathom it doesn't make it wrong.
There are so many types of science and variables involved here that one human brain couldn't possibly cope with it all...that is unless you're a denier...apparently they have an IQ unseen in all of history.

 

[StrayKAT]

I'm sorry but I cannot believe the levels of ego-driven arrogance in this thread.
Evidence for what IS happening doesn't come from one or two scientific fields or observed measurements.
Just because you don't understand the evidence of something or can't fathom it doesn't make it wrong.
There are so many types of science and variables involved here that one human brain couldn't possibly cope with it all...that is unless you're a denier...apparently they have an IQ unseen in all of history.

I don't see anyone being arrogant in this thread, or making claims to scientific expertise. I for one am calling for less hysteria, and simply defending taxpayers. Anything that destroys the livelihood of people better have some tangible benefit to make it worth it. Even the most pie-in-the-sky social welfare program can provide this much. You could actually win them over if you could do it. Vague claims won't do it. And certainly not fractional reductions of CO2 over centuries. That's almost like some modern (but less bizarre) version of Catholic indulgences. Pay now, to get us out of the Purgatory to come.

Frankly, no one gives a shit. Call them shortsighted or stupid. They still don't give a shit - At the end of the day, putting food on the table (and whatever threatens that) is still more important to them than what happens a hundred years later. Scientists who don't get this must be the eggheads they actually seem to be, unable to relate to practical concerns. And politicians who make appeals this way are highly suspect. Usually wars and massive suppression is needed to get this much money and commitment from people. Now suddenly you just expect them to give it up on purpose?

edit: Also, I should add..or rather repeat.. that I'm not against alternative energy sources especially. And I started in this thread speaking against pollution. These are also the things everyday people know that they can benefit from. Keep things at that, and you can start making allies. This other shit isn't going to help.

 

[Vayra86]

The "largest possible scale" is impossible. The world is built up of nations. It's not a global society that carries ANYTHING out on a very large scale. And thus, the largest possible scale in the current circumstances just lays the burden on one: The Americans, who you already show to be dismissive towards right off the bat. You want the livelihood and hard work of it's citizens, even while calling them ignorant at the same time. This doesn't bode well. This goes for the UN and Nato and every other supposed global effort. It's just shorthand for "Get the stupid Americans to pay for it."

That said, we'll probably just help out with environmental disasters. That's about the best you can ask for them to do willingly.

Americans aside, things like the Paris Treaty especially weren't good on a large scale no matter how you put it. You don't even have to mention America: It actually created obstacles for smaller/"third world" countries from ever reaping the benefits of their own industrial revolutions. Now that Europe and America and parts of Asia had their own, it was going to snuff out anyone else's chances of achieving the same. So much for actually improving things. It'd inadvertently keep certain countries perpetually in the dark ages.. or at best, make them overly dependent on existing power sources from the bigger countries.

No, the burden for environmental improvement was never with the Americans and no they really arent paying for it, quite the opposite. Its one of the largest polluters in the world and the American is the most wasteful citizen on the planet. Regardless even of its place on the social ladder.

This has nothing to do with, once again, world wars and/or the US role in conflict because really, that is all it really pays for and it only does that to further its own interests at the cost of others. Whats really happening is that the US stands to lose the most, along with China, because it has to change the most and that is going to cost influential people money. Its all about that, and that alone. Human lives? Human rights? Everything is secondary to profit. Everything is for sale. Screw ethics, screw common sense, its exactly as you put it: will there be food on the table tomorrow? If that is a perspective you support, that really says it all. You are right, many dont look or think any further than that... but it doesnt mean they shouldnt.

 

[rtwjunkie]

The country with the highest homicide rates in the world that still sells guns freely, no matter how many schools and kids get shot up 'because muh Freedom and muh constitutional rights, durrr'.

As someone in a field to know this, school shootings, though sensational, are a minuscule number of gun deaths. Almost all gun deaths are committed by criminals in gang on gang violence, and no, they didn’t purchase their guns.

It’s really best to have actual knowledge of a subject before discussing, not using mass media as your teacher. It might also be wise to read all the papers and notes of the U.S. Constitutional writers to understand the reason for gun rights: because no government, even one’s own is to be trusted.

One of the U.S. most liberal states (I use the term because in the U.S. they are the most ant-gun rights), Vermont, who regularly produce progressives and socialists like Bernie Sanders was the first “Constitutional Carry” state, and its citizens still strongly believe in that. Remarkably, they consistently have one of the lowest murder rates in the nation, yet large numbers of the population own guns.

 

[StrayKAT]

No, the burden for environmental improvement was never with the Americans and no they really arent paying for it, quite the opposite. Its one of the largest polluters in the world and the American is the most wasteful citizen on the planet. Regardless even of its place on the social ladder.

This has nothing to do with, once again, world wars and/or the US role in conflict because really, that is all it really pays for and it only does that to further its own interests at the cost of others. Whats really happening is that the US stands to lose the most, along with China, because it has to change the most and that is going to cost influential people money. Its all about that, and that alone. Human lives? Human rights? Everything is secondary to profit. Everything is for sale. Screw ethics, screw common sense, its exactly as you put it: will there be food on the table tomorrow? If that is a perspective you support, that really says it all. You are right, many dont look or think any further than that... but it doesnt mean they shouldnt.

The whole point of your ethical concerns is to ensure wellbeing and survival of humankind.. Yet in the same breath, you mock those very things when "wellbeing" and "survival" are applied to immediate concerns - like food. No, humanity's survival has to to be some abstract ideal to you.. Else it's not grand enough or something.

You'll never win anyone over like this. Enviromental concerns have a better chance of improving things when they focus on immediacy as well. People cringe at how pollution immediately effects them, for example. That will work if you drive the point home enough.

Speaking of pollution, you say you care about it, but just earlier, you were singing Al Gore's praises. The guy with a $30,000 utility bill and has 10x the carbon footprint of the average person. Care to explain this?

Not to mention that you expect everyone to just sacrifice taxes and jobs.. and mock them if they don't.. yet you praise a guy who reaps massive benefits in the HERE and NOW.. tons of partnerships with "green" companies, hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech, etc.. He sacrifices nothing and pollutes more to boot. Yet the average Joe or Jane are the bad guys.. because they simply don't hop along unquestioningly to your views.. and because they don't want to sacrifice things either, like Al Gore. Why is he special? Is this even about environmentalism or is it class warfare?

 

[R-T-B]

Most wealthy people probably have a massive eco footprint. I'm not exactly an Al-Gore fan (frankly I think he set us back more than he pushed us forward) but I'd argue he probably is the rule in his income segment, not the exception.

Supposedly clever people still think man made global warming is a thing, how arrogant are you for thinking we have any kind of say on the seasons of this planet we inhabit?

Not as arrogant as people who still refuse to look at established science, I assure you.

I sometimes wonder if locale plays into the politics of this. For me Climate Change is real and I feel it every day with Washingtons increasingly destructively warmer weather patterns. I guess someone who isn't in such a hotspot may have an easier time with the denial, and can easily rationalize it with 200 year old selective "peak figures" rather than sensible averages, etc.

 

[StrayKAT]

Most wealthy people probably have a massive eco footprint. I'm not exactly an Al-Gore fan (frankly I think he set us back more than he pushed us forward) but I'd argue he probably is the rule in his income segment, not the exception.

Leonardo DiCaprio also comes to mind. He's always giving talks about this subject.. only to leave and party on a giant yacht and probably spends a large portion of his time in a private jet.

Personally, I've only been on an airliner a handful of times. And barely drive. But I'm not slurping your dicks, so I must be the bad guy.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

For me Climate Change is real and I feel it every day with Washingtons increasingly destructively warmer weather patterns.

It's nearly impossible to tie any weather event to climate change. We're only talking about an average of 1-2C increase in surface temperature globally which is very mild. The problem is that it affects oceanic conveyors, atmospheric conveyors, and how much water on the planet is solid which, in turn, influences weather. "I feel it every day" is weather, not climate. Climate change causes different species of trees becoming dominant and climate sensitive animals to migrate.

 

[neatfeatguy]

Issue = too many people
There will come a time we won't be able to support the world population; food or water. Wars will break out, nations will shatter/fall. People will become more divided.

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

According to that link above, nearly 2.5x as many people are born every day as compared to the amount that die. It's estimated the world population will be upwards of 10 billion people by 2050 (that's about 2.8 billion more than there are estimated today).

More people = more polution/less food/less resources

We're are our own worst enemy in this whole thing. People will manipulate information. Others will blindly follow. Others will be in complete denial. Others will fall in the middle......people will fight each other about resources as time progresses due to the continued high population growth. Unless there really is some miracle breakthrough in being able to produce enough food and clean water for the world's growing population, well, we'll end up succumbing to a mass genocide through war, plague, virus or drought. Life on the planet will balance out in due time - whether it is with humans or not. As to when this will happen, I'd venture to guess sometime in the next 50-100 years, barring (as I said), some miracle breakthrough that can solve all our issues.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[StrayKAT]

Issue = too many people
There will come a time we won't be able to support the world population; food or water. Wars will break out, nations will shatter/fall. People will become more divided.

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

According to that link above, nearly 2.5x as many people are born every day as compared to the amount that die. It's estimated the world population will be upwards of 10 billion people by 2050 (that's about 2.8 billion more than there are estimated today).

More people = more polution/less food/less resources

We're are our own worst enemy in this whole thing. People will manipulate information. Others will blindly follow. Others will be in complete denial. Others will fall in the middle......people will fight each other about resources as time progresses due to the continued high population growth. Unless there really is some miracle breakthrough in being able to produce enough food and clean water for the world's growing population, well, we'll end up succumbing to a mass genocide through war, plague, virus or drought. Life on the planet will balance out in due time - whether it is with humans or not. As to when this will happen, I'd venture to guess sometime in the next 50-100 years, barring (as I said), some miracle breakthrough that can solve all our issues.

At least that's how I see it.

Fertility rates are actually declining in one sense. It was once predicted (early 90s/UN report) that there'd be over 10 billion people on Earth by this time. It's not panning out that way. It could be that it's already peaking. If that's the case, I guess you could say sustaining it can be more easily managed.

If that makes you feel better.