Category: Science (Page 9 of 17)

OK, I Was Wrong

January 4, 2010 / Augustus / 0 Comments

Finally, proof of global warming:

Proof of Global Warming

But then, what about this:

A new study shows no change in the proportion of atmospheric and absorbed CO2 for the last 150 years.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.

Oh, hang on. He looked at real world data. The man’s obviously completely unreliable.

Adapting to Climate Change

January 4, 2010 / Augustus / 0 Comments

Climate changes all the time.

How do we adapt to these changes in a way that assists the most vulnerable – that is, the poor?

One way is to adopt policies which will assist poorer people to develop the resources and strategies they need to buffer them from rapid climate change.

Another is to make sure we know what is going on, so we can make plans to cope with the changes that are actually occurring.

Because so much data has been lost/manipulated, etc, we have very little idea what has really happened over the last fifty years.

One thing is for sure. it isn’t getting any warmer.

There are record low temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere, from the US and Canada to the UK to China and Siberia.

Bitter Winters in the Andes can no longer be described as an anomaly. Growing numbers of children – hundreds in some small rural districts – are dying each year from cold.

It’s time we stopped playing global warming computer games, and started dealing with real world changes, and the real world needs of people who cannot, as Al Gore can, squander 200,000 kilowatt hours of electricity each year.

Get Your Global Cooling Here

December 31, 2009 / Augustus / 0 Comments

One of the worrying things about the cherry-picking, data fudging, distorting, lying, fund-grabbing behaviour that has characterised global warming alarmism over the last two decades, is that we now have no idea at all what the climate has been doing.

Much of the original temperature data seems to have disappeared, leaving only value-less ‘value-added’ data.

What data we have, when the Urban Heat Island Effect is taken into account, along with the fudging and cheating, shows little or no warming, or even cooling.

Climate changes can be and have been devastating in the past, rapid cooling far more so than gradual warming.

There is nothing we can do to stop natural climate change.

We can prepare for it. And that preparation may save millions of lives.

There is no doubt that next major change will be towards a cooler world.

Let’s hope we can quickly get past the hiatus in real climate science caused by well-funded claims of non-existent anthropogenic global warming, and find real world data that will give us real world answers.

In the meantime, it is a deadly cold Winter in the Northern Hemisphere:

A Cold Winter in Europe

DSSO (Decadal Science Scare Oscillation) Winner

December 31, 2009 / Augustus / 3 Comments

After considering a number of possible candidates for the next major science scare, the UN today annouced the winner was the asteroid Apophis.

‘We’ve got as much funding, and as many free holidays, as we are likely to get from global warming,’ UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon announced today. ‘It’s time to move on.’

‘The asteroid Apophis meets all the criteria for the next DSSO. There is a slim chance it could cause major destruction, on a scale the world has never seen.’ He said.

‘It will take billions of dollars in research funds, and several conferences, before we know whether this destruction is likely or or not. But the consequences of not acting are so dire, that even if the science is not proven, we owe it to our children and grandchildren to put the planet first, and give the world the benefit of the doubt.’

Anatoly Perminov told the Russian radio station Golos Rossii: “People’s lives are at stake. We should pay several hundred million dollars and build a system that would allow us to prevent a collision, rather than sit and wait for it to happen and kill hundreds of thousands of people.”

Mirrors, lights and even paint could change the way the object absorbed light and heat enough to shift its direction over 20 years or so. With less notice, mankind could be forced to take more drastic measures, such as setting off a massive explosion on or near the object to change its course.

Smoke and mirrors?

Same deal as climate change, then.

PS. Ban Ki Moon didn’t really say any of that. But he might as well have.

Growing New Teeth

December 31, 2009 / Augustus / 0 Comments

Another worthwhile therapeutic result from adult stem cells.

Useful applications from embryonic stems cells – 0. From non-destructive, ethical stem cell research, over 70, as at 2007.

Researchers have used stems cells taken from mice to create tooth buds. A small incision was made in the animals’ gums and the bud implanted. New teeth grew.

The tooth bud produces a new tooth, and the bone required to anchor the tooth to the jaw.

Professor Paul Sharpe, a specialist in the field of regenerative dentistry at the Dental Institute of King’s College, London, says the same techniques will produce similar results in humans:

Using a local anaesthetic, the tooth bud is inserted through a small incision into the gum. Within months, the cells will have matured into a fully-formed tooth, fused to the jawbone. As the tooth grows, it releases chemicals that encourage nerves and blood vessels to link up with it.

Climategate – A Graphical History

December 28, 2009 / Augustus / 0 Comments

Jo Nova has put together a massive wall chart of highlights (low lights?) from the FOI file of documents and emails from Hadley.

It details more than twenty years of data fudging, bullying of scientists with alternative views, pressuring scientific journals, hijacking the peer review process, and outright lying about the evidence for anthropogenic climate change by a small cabal of well-funded public servants.

The only disappointment is that Jo repeats the furphy about the medieval church silencing sceptics. Jo is usually a careful researcher and clear thinker, so this is a little surprising.

In reality, the medieval church was the friend of science, and consistently encouraged the asking of questions and the search for truth.

This is one of the reasons it is the West that has been the home of science, and Western thought which has provided so many of the answers to questions about the natural world.

But that hesitation aside, Jo’s wallchart is a product of a prodigious amount of work, displayed, as always, in a clear and interesting way.

Now There’s An Idea That Could Work …

December 20, 2009 / Augustus / 1 Comment

This is both funny and tragic because the words put into Obama’s mouth are true, and the plan would work. But it will just never happen.

Imagine the posibilities, the hopenchangen. But, instead, real hope, and real change.

Darn. The more I think about it, the sadder I feel.

From Scott Ott’s Scrappleface:

Delegates to the global climate conference in Copenhagen sat in stunned silence today as President Obama solved the global warming crisis with a single 25-minute speech.

“While the challenges we face may seem insoluble,” the Nobel laureate said, “the solution is actually quite simple. It’s historically reliable. It works every time it’s sincerely tried.”

“Basically, the problem is that poor nations are broke,” Obama explained, “and rich nations don’t want to throw their money down a totalitarian rathole, into the hands of tyrants who see this treaty as a gold mine and who have no intention of reducing carbon emissions. Since we need trillions of dollars to fund development of speculative green technologies, the only answer is for the poor nations to get rich fast.”

Obama said the broad outlines of his plan included having poor nations “adopt the time-tested Protestant work ethic, free-market capitalism and equal justice under law.”

“Once you see your vocation as a calling from God,” he said, “you work diligently toward excellence, to bring glory to your creator. If your property rights are guaranteed under law, you work to improve yours, and to acquire more, by serving others. Under my plan, within half a century, the less-developed nations will go from being pathetic dependents to equal trading partners.”

While skeptics said the president’s plan would put off a solution until the world’s coastlands were under water, Obama said, “Free men and women solve problems for profit, for accolades and for inscrutable personal purposes … but they do solve problems. If, in five decades, there’s still a climate crisis, we can all get together, kick in an equal share per capita, and hire someone to fix it.”

Pessimism Rife at Copenhagen

December 18, 2009 / Augustus / 1 Comment

So, good news all around.

The SMH is reporting a draft deal at Crappenhuggen.

What they are reporting is not a ‘deal’ but a draft document put together by developed nations as a possible basis for a take it or leave it offer to greedy socialist whingers leaders of developing nations.

I have no hope at all that any world leader will be brave enough to admit that the whole fiasco has been completely pointless, that we don’t know enough to know what to do, that anything we could do at this point is likely to make things worse, and so the wisest thing is to do nothing.

No, they will all want to look they have achieved something, so some agreement will be forthcoming.

There will be lots of smiles, handshakes and congratulations.

But for all the good it will do the world it might as well be lots of piles, milkshakes and flatulence.

The only thing to hope for is that this will just amount to a commitment to ‘journey forward together’ of ‘growth in our sense of commitment to one another as members of a single global community.’

And of course for the US, Australia, Canada, etc, to pay billions of dollars in bribes compensation to developing nations.

Sigh

Data from Russian stations have been (with equally dodgy US surface station data) a large part of the evidence for warming.

Now that the Russian data are known to have been carefully selected – using only the 25% of stations that showed a consistent warming trend – there is no credible basis for any claim that the world has been warming at all, let alone at unusual rates.

And there is still no reason that any of the minor changes in the always changing global climate should be attributed to human activity.

Politicians who do not have the backbone to ask questions now, and to stand up to the hysteria, or who commit their countries to painfully costly and pointless plans to reduce the use of cheap fuels, will be punished mercilessly when they next face an election.

Bye Mr Rudd. Bye Mr Obama.

No Lack of Rationality at Copenhagen

December 18, 2009 / Augustus / 0 Comments

I’d be a believer too if I thought I’d be up for billions in grants, cars, holidays, Swiss bank accounts.

There are vast amounts of money to be made in being victims of climate change.

So it’s no wonder the President of the Maldives and the chief negotiater for Tuvalu (who lives in New South Wales) are sobbing about how the greedy West has caused sea levels to rise, destroying their tiny, vulnerable countries.

But hey, a cookie a few billion dollars will make us feel better.

The sobbing and hand-wringing is despite the fact that there has been no increase in global mean temperature over the last fifteeen years, and no sea level rise in Tuvalu or the Maldives for the last thirty years.

You just have to have faith. Name it and claim it, brothers and sisters! Hallelujah!

It’s all perfectly rational – if money or approval is your goal.

What is lacking at Copenhagen is rationality not motivated by self-interest – either a desire for cash, or for for world recognition as a really cool guy, the bloke who saved the day, the man who stayed up all night to work for a solution, the chap who really ought to be the next Secretary General.

Global warming fervour is often compared with religious faith. I have made that comparison myself. But this is unfair to religious leaders.

When I was a parish priest I regularly told parishioners, ‘Don’t take my word for what I tell you – do your own research, check, read, ask questions.’

The only reason to believe anything is because it is true. And decisions about what is true need to be made on the basis of evidence, not feelings or desires.

This is the exact opposite of what is required to be considered a true climate believer. Questions are not welcomed. Those who doubt are cast into the outer darkness and denounced as deniers.

Environmental journalist and rational person Phelim McAleer was told by one Copenhagen participant to ‘get out while you still can’ and was later assaulted during a live television interview.

In a paroxysm of self-parody, Kevin Rudd told Copenhagen participants and world leaders (about 50 of them, anyway) that he fears a ‘triumph of form over substance … a triumph of inaction over action’ and that history would judge them if they failed.

I agree on both counts.

A triumph of form, of easy compliance, of the desire to appear noble and statesman-like, over real hard headed science and rational discussion of the issues is exactly what is to be feared.

And history will certainly judge leaders who failed to ask questions about whether the science of global warming was sufficiently well grounded to justify desperate promises of billions of dollars, and hurried decisions to limit the use of cheap fuels on which most of the world’s wealth depends.

Consensus, Consensus, Consensus

December 15, 2009 / Augustus / 0 Comments

I said it three times, so it must be true.

Or it was true back in the seventies.

No matter how much they try to deny it now (just as in five years time they will all be denying they ever fell for the AGW scam) there seemed to be a consensus two decades ago that the world was cooling, it was all our fault, we only had a few years to take action to save the world.

Remember the DSSO? The Decadal Science Scare Oscillation?

Maurizio Morabito at the Spectator recounts the terrifying story of global cooling as follows:

The threat of a new ice age loomed so large in 1974 that American intelligence collated a report on the likely effects. Maurizio Morabito unearthed it

A high-priority government report warns of climate change that will lead to floods and starvation. ‘Leading climatologists’ speak of a ‘detrimental global climatic change’, threatening ‘the stability of most nations’. The scenario is eerily familiar although the document — never made public before — dates from 1974. But here’s the difference: it was written to respond to the threat of global cooling, not warming. And yes, it even mentions a ‘consensus’ among scientists.

‘A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems’, written by the CIA for ‘internal planning purposes’ in August 1974, goes a little way towards explaining why some people over a certain age experience a sense of déjà-vu when climate change is mentioned; in the mid-1970s there really was a lot of scientific discussion about global cooling. With the benefit of hindsight, reading it makes one feel wry and embarrassed. So many of the terms bandied about 35 years ago are still being employed by today’s fear-mongers, about the very opposite phenomenon.

It is as if climate scares had to follow a set pattern. Back in 1974 the usual disasters were projected: the ‘new climatic era’ was said to be bringing famine, starvation, refugee crises, floods, droughts, crop and monsoon failures, and all sorts of extreme weather phenomena. The Sahara would expand. World grain reserves, already at less than a month’s supply, would be depleted. A list of past civilisations brought down by ‘major and minor’ cooling episodes was given, which included the Indus, Hittites, Mycenaean, and the Mali empire of Africa. Any possible benefits to climate change were barely mentioned.

More parallels can be drawn. According to the CIA report, in 1974 climate science was developing ‘a successful climatic prediction model’, as indeed it still is. Government intervention had brought together eminent scientists who had previously been at odds with each other then had established a ‘scientific consensus’ on ‘global climate change’. The scientists claimed this pattern of cooling would cause ‘major economic problems around the world’. Dealing with this would, of course, require the creation of several new government agencies. The media at the time seized on all of this, just as it is doing now. Newsweek and the New York Times described the global cooling threat.

How is it that the parallels between that 1970s panic and today’s have been so little remarked upon? And it doesn’t stop there. There have even been recent attempts to label the ‘global cooling consensus’ a ‘myth’, most notably in a well-publicised article by Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck published by the American Meteorological Society in September 2008.

Well, plus ça change. It’s easy to miss what you do not look for. Mentions of a global cooling consensus appear as far back as 1961. I found the CIA report referred to in a 1976 newspaper article and was doubly amazed to discover it was available as a microfiche in the British Library.

So what would have prompted the CIA to compile such a dossier? The most likely explanation is what it describes as the loss of ‘a significant portion’ of the USSR’s winter wheat crop in 1972. The harvest was so poor that the CIA saw geopolitical ramifications. Its report says that ‘the politics of food’ is a complex business, which cannot be understood by ‘existing analytical tools’. So to address a political problem, they asked scientists to come up with a solution. Precisely the same thing is happening today. One might almost conclude that, in the world of climatology, theories are made to order.

Or is the problem with the general public, who cannot talk about climate except in doom-laden terms, and for whom the sky is the last animist god? This might be the most important lesson of the 1974 report on global cooling: that we need to grow up, separate climatology from fear, and recognise — much as it pains politicians and scientists — that our understanding of how climate changes remains in its infancy.

Temperature Changing

December 12, 2009 / Augustus / 0 Comments

Even when it hasn’t changed.

This kind of ‘adjustment’ appears to have been so common it is hardly worth commenting on any more.

Except that we are still waiting for any kind of acknowledgement of these alterations in the lamestream media, or any discussion of why they are so important.

Put simply, the whole global warming scare is based on alleged unusual warming in the last half century. But the surface temperature readings on which these claims are based had to be manipulated to obtain a warming signal. Without these adjustments, the overall warming disappears.

These graphs, from Watts Up With That are just one example:

Data Before Manipulation Shows No Warming

'Value Added' Data Shows IPCC Warming Signal

Plaintively, From Off Stage – ‘But, All the Scientists Agree …’

December 10, 2009 / Augustus / 0 Comments

Well, not quite:

His Excellency Ban Ki Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America
8 December 2009

Dear Secretary-General,

Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ – the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:

1.Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;

2.Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3.Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4.Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5.The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6.Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7.Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8.Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9.Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10.Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.

Signed by over 100 leading climate scientists.

See the full list at Copenhagen Climate Challenge.

via Australian Conservative.

No Posting Day Post Three

December 9, 2009 / Augustus / 0 Comments

Just one more thing before the lager and nuts:

From Town Hall.

And finally (no I really mean it this time), if you are still in any doubt that scary AGW is a fraud, bad science, based on cherry picked and manipulated data, a load of old cobblers, the opiate of the newsreaders, read Disproving the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem by Leonard Weinstein.

Dr Weinstein is a former senior research scientist who worked more than 30 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and is now senior research fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

He writes: “In order to support a theory, specific predictions need to be made that are based on the claims of the theory, and the predictions then need to happen.”

He lists six predictions required by the CO2 caused AGW theory and shows how not one has occurred. Also from Town Hall, with thanks.

If it were not for the vast amounts of money being made, AGW would have hit the remainder bins years ago.

PS. It’s cold and foggy and boring in Copenhagen.

PPS. Sarah Palin has some sensible words about Crapenhogen:

The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs — particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science. Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference.

You go, girl.

Disaster of Unprecedented Proportions

December 9, 2009 / Augustus / 0 Comments

Or that’s what the AGW alarmists would have you believe, with ever more shrill warnings about melting ice, starving Africans, extinct frogs, and the hottest decade ever in Australia. No really, you have to believe me.

Whatever.

‘Whatever’, is becoming the standard, and appropriate, response to the decadal scientific scare oscillation (DSSO).

For example, 20% more people in the US believe in angels than believe in terrifying human caused global warming.

Well done, I say. This is good evidence of the common sense of the common people. From what I have seen and read, there is more reason to believe in angels than AGW, or most other fairy tale monsters.

Meanwhile, the lamestream media are beginning to see the writing in the ice.

The Australian today carried an article discussing two major studies reported in peer reviewed scientific journals, both of which seriously undermine the alarmist non-science.

On Monday CNN gave a substantial amount of air time to real climate science. That is, science that fairly addresses the complications of climate modelling and examines real world data without multiple layers of massage and hot rock therapy.

Fair reporting on CNN? OMG! The world really is ending.

Finally, yesterday’s Telegraph included a long and careful article by Christopher Booker detailing the astonishing costs of reducing CO2 emissions to the levels proposed by the scare crew.

Don’t forget, Decadal Scientific Scare Oscillation. DSSO.

This will save you from any pointless fear when the new ‘We must do something about this right now at great expense or the world will end’ scenario appears in five years time.

If I Only Had A Brain

December 6, 2009 / Augustus / 0 Comments

The Parliament of the World’s Religions 2009 opened this week in Melbourne. “Major speakers” include Jimmy Carter, Joan Chittister and Michael Kirby.

Miss Jean Brodie said it best: “For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like.”

A visit to the Parliament’s website makes it clear that environmental issues are a key concern:

The Melbourne Parliament will draw forth the sacred nature of the environment from all religious and spiritual traditions, led by the Indigenous peoples of the earth. It will also showcase the partnership between communities and other guiding institutions in pursuing practical approaches for reversing climate change and its effects.

John Cleary, who presents a religious program on the ABC on Sunday nights, says there are parallels between the Parliament of Religions in Melbourne and the climate summit in Copenhagen.

Cleary does not have in mind any sense of religious fervour, which I suspect will be more in evidence in Copenhagen than Melbourne, but the fact that both are concerned with “healing the planet”.

George Browning, former Anglican Bishop of Canberra/Goulburn, says in the document Common Belief: … if Christians believe in Jesus they must recognise that concern for climate change is not an optional extra but a core matter of faith.

But there is a huge leap in the claim that being a Christian means an obligation to take action to prevent climate change.

Being concerned for the responsible exercise of the Christian duty of stewardship for creation need not involve church leaders rushing to grab a share of the latest climate apocalypse action.

John Cleary said in his conversation with Derek Guille that the knowledge that “God so loved the world” should lead to a sense of global responsibility, and that such a sense of responsibility could add “real grunt” to the climate change debate.

Christians have two key things to offer to any debate about the environment and our role in it. But neither of them is a vague sense of responsibility, or “grunt”.

First is a right understanding of who we are in relation to the rest of creation. Because of the incarnation, we know that the material word is not evil, or something to be used or ignored. It is the product of a loving and rational God. It is good. It will be redeemed. On the other hand, it is not a god. There is no Gaia. Awe inspiring and beautiful as it is, the material world is not to be worshipped for its own sake.

Second, because Christianity is a faith based on reason and evidence, Christians ought to be buffered from, and help to buffer others from, ideology or wishful (or alarmist) thinking. Christians who are true to their calling will think, research, pray, consult and consider before arriving at a conclusion about how to respond to any particular issue.

Pope John Paul II pointed out that “Reverence for nature must be combined with scientific learning”. (Pastoral Statement, Renewing the Earth: An Invitation to Reflection and Action on Environment in Light of Catholic Social Teaching.)

Maybe the church’s climate scare collaborators could try it.

And maybe, as the scarecrow did, they will think of things they never thunk before.

One of the reasons I was not able to post anything on Friday was that I had a number of clients whose computers I needed to attend to urgently.

The other reason was that I was writing a longish article on climate change discussions at the Parliament of Religions in Melbourne.

The lines above are a brief summary. Visit The Australian Conservative to read the whole thing.

The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, an informal interdenominational network of Christian congregations, has released a statement saying:

Global warming alarmism is based on biased science, sloppy economics, and misguided theology …

Global warming policies would produce unethical results that would:

•destroy millions of jobs.
•cost trillions of dollars in lost economic production.
•slow, stop, or reverse economic growth.
•reduce the standard of living for all but the elite few who are well positioned to benefit from laws that unfairly advantage them.
•endanger liberty by putting vast new powers over private, social, and market life in the hands of national and international governments.
•condemn the world’s poor to generations of continued misery characterized by rampant disease and premature death

The result of all these sacrifices will be at most a negligible, undetectable reduction in global average temperature a hundred years from now. …

such policies are wrongheaded, destructive, and detrimental to the poor.

Why is that kind of clear sightedness, attention to evidence, and moral sense so hard for mainstream Australian church leaders?