Risks To Human Health Will Accelerate As Climate Changes, White House Warns (washingtonpost.com) 231
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Washington Post: More deaths from extreme heat. Longer allergy seasons. Increasingly polluted air and water. Diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and ticks spreading farther and faster. Those are among the health risks that could be exacerbated by global warming coming decades, the Obama administration warned in a new report Monday. The study, more than 300 pages long and several years in the making, focuses on what the White House has described as one of the gravest threats to the nation: major health problems associated with climate change. It details direct effects, such as the potential for worsening air quality to trigger thousands more premature deaths from respiratory problems or an uptick in annual deaths from crushing heat waves. While every American could be affected, administration officials said Monday, the brunt of the harm is most likely to fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women, children, the poor, the elderly, minorities, immigrants and people with disabilities.
But those Republicans just don't care! (Score:2, Funny)
Just don't care!
Re: But those Republicans just don't care! (Score:3, Insightful)
My liberal or conservative viewpoint aside, I just do not believe this is the biggest threat to our nation.
Assuming the predicted changes do actually fall in the middle some where, neither worst case scenario nor least change, but somewhere in between, I'm sure America will be one of the least affected countries.
Let's assume that every future hurricane is a full category rating above the storms force pre-climate change.
Me
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This likely isn't about being a big threat to the nation. It is more likely the camel's nose under the tent. They are looking for ways to force remediation efforts onto the U.S. and so far have found resistance and impotence. Now that the federal government is deeply involved in your healthcare, if they can show a strong enough correlation, they can shoehorn the global warming agenda in under the guise of healthcare. This likely can happen without congress acting on it too because of some of the administrat
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The main complaints are the snow and cooling a house is generally less energy intensive than heating an can be done all electric (and we have Palo Verde here).
Woman and Children!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Women and Children Hit Hardest!
The trope that keeps on giving.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't mean its wrong. See page 5:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/n... [cdc.gov]
I know that mainly shows elderly are vulnerable but to be fair, they are listed in the summary which also adds "pregnant" before women.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sadly for you, winning PR war won't protect you from the facts.
I'll give you a true verifiable fact, killing babies and selling their body parts are a greater danger to people and society than this drivel. Yet how driven to tears and hysteria are you by that fact?
Oh right you are a liberal, you rejoice in it. The stench of hypocrisy rises to the point of being stinking blind.
women and children most effected (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:women and children most effected (Score:4, Funny)
Women and children with ocean-front property to be specific.
Hot Air out of WDC ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Has already hurt us in the last 7 years.
Environmental Poisoning By Corrupt Corporations (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem: too many people on the planet.
So, why do we want to save them at all price?
national warming? (Score:3, Insightful)
"global warming" is "described as one of the gravest threats to the nation"
It always amuses me that to a typical American, everything seems to only be about America.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"global warming" is "described as one of the gravest threats to the nation"
It always amuses me that to a typical American, everything seems to only be about America.
Shut up! Shut up, you American. You always talk, you Americans, you talk and you talk and say 'Let me tell you something' and 'I just wanna say this.' Well, you're dead now, so shut up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For one thing, I happen to live in this country, so I'm particularly interested in what goes on here. For another, the US is going to be relatively little affected by climate change, being a large and wealthy nation that doesn't depend on ocean currents to keep it warm. If it's a threat to us, it's a bigger threat to most other people.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny. I haven't spoken to any Europeans lately.
So what? (Score:2)
Why would I care what the White House has to say? A job at the White House is not a scientific credential, and this is very obviously not a properly peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal.
Nuclear Power (Score:5, Interesting)
I assume this warning is a call to action, so let's act. I hear a lot of talking heads that claim we need an "all of the above" approach to solve this problem but they don't include nuclear power. Then I'd hear nuclear waste, blah blah, Chernobyl, blah blah, Fukushima, blah blah. I thought global warming was the greatest threat we have, so is it?
If these government officials will tell me that global warming is such a threat that drastic measures are needed then I'd think that using nuclear power is a drastic measure. That's assuming all the fear mongering of China Syndrome melt downs are even true, which they are not.
I say put the US Navy in charge of our energy production, they seem to know how to operate nuclear reactors safely. Use the nuclear reactor design from one of those big submarines and build a million of them. Perhaps that's too much, a thousand then. Put a few dozen in every state and hook them to the electric grid. Problem solved, right?
Oh, where do we get the fuel? I seem to recall that the federal government has a whole pile of nuclear warheads that they aren't using, crack them open and take out the cores. That should keep us going until we can dig up some more.
Any complaints about nuclear power should be moot now, we have a real problem of global warming to handle. Any problems that come up from using nuclear power should be trivial by comparison. Again, if nuclear power is not part of the all-of-the-above then I have to wonder just how much of a threat global warming really poses.
Re: (Score:3)
Won't work. By the time enough Nukes can be brought online it will be too late. The cost and timelines for safe Nukes is prohibitive .I don't have any problem using nukes, I worked at Palo Verde, the largest nuke in the country and one of the oldest and safest.
The problem is simply logistics. The money and time spent on trying to shore up our energy requirements to replace coal and oil would be far better spent building gas fired plants and alternate power systems. No one system is viable today to solve all
Re: (Score:2)
The cost and timelines for safe Nukes is prohibitive .
Really? It seems the US Navy can get a nuclear power plant when they want it and at a "reasonable" price. If you want to call a US Navy nuclear power plant "unsafe" then I know a few sailors that might like to debate you on that.
The only reason this is true for civilian nuclear power is because the US DOE has deemed it so. We can build nuclear power plants on time and on budget, we would just have to scrap the US DOE and put the DOD in charge.
Well, not precisely that. We can keep the DOE around but they
Re: (Score:2)
Won't work. By the time enough Nukes can be brought online it will be too late.
Hasn't been any warming for over 18 years, we've got some wiggle room, probably a lot of wiggle room.
Re: (Score:2)
just to be clear, the *oil* industry funded individuals and groups to pose as "environmentalists" in order to derail nuclear power in this country. Other countries didn't have that sort of opposition because their energy companies were diversified: american oil was looking at being relegated to insignificance and fought back with every thing they could think of.
When I was in high school (oh so many years ago) there was a talk by a nuclear physicist on nuclear power and its problems. They have essentially al
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Any solution needs to be affordable, in order to get everyone on-board. Businesses and developing nations in particular are not going to accept throwing vast sums of money at nuclear when other clean energy sources are cheaper and much less risky. When I say "risk" I don't just mean the chance of a serious accident, I mean the financial liability risk. Wind is a fairly safe investment over a predictable period of time with predictable costs. With nuclear there is so much uncertainty about basic stuff, like
Re: (Score:3)
Whatever. Point is that one Los Angeles class submarine can be built for one billion dollars and the power plant within it can produce 30 megawatts or so of power. Therefore I can assume we can build a nuclear power plant, on land, for less than that. How much less? I don't know or care, it could be a penny less and still be a bargain if the global warming alarmists are to be believed.
Sure, let's build nuclear power plants that can use thorium as fuel. That is a great idea. While we figure out the eng
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The submarine reactor can be built with less safeties because the men running it signed up knowing the risks.
Again, if global warming is such a threat then we can live with the "less safeties" in a Navy nuclear power plant. Besides, when has a US Navy power plant ever melted down? The US Navy has built dozens of them by now, perhaps hundreds over the last 60 years they've been doing this. If it makes you feel better then we can put a concrete dome over them. It's not like we have to build them *EXACTLY* like we do for the submarines but we can use that design as a starting point to deploy a fleet of power plan
Re: (Score:2)
Again, if global warming is such a threat then we can live with the "less safeties" in a Navy nuclear power plant.
You can remove all the safety features from nuclear reactors and they'll still be prohibitively expensive. The cost has nothing to do with actual engineering or construction, and everything to do with the cost of regulatory overhead.
Re: (Score:2)
'Without incident' is wishful thinking. They developed small nukes for ships from scratch. It's insane to even expect it was without hiccups.
Still they do have a better safety record than the Ruskys. Who are basically the only others in the game.
Re: (Score:2)
Typical land based nukes produce 1000 megawatts of power per reactor.
Most American nuke plant operators are already navy nuke school graduates. Which is a bitch and a half just to qualify for. ROTC, more or less, ran a multi-year recruitment effort on me just because I had 'nuke school grades'. I assume that attached a nice paycheck to me for the recruiters.
Re: (Score:2)
I am assuming that civilian nuclear power is somehow flawed in its design or implementation. This is true on one or more levels because while the US Navy has built dozens of nuclear reactors in the last 40 years then civilian power sector has built none to few.
I do realize that a large number of current civilian nuclear power plant staff are Navy veterans. Since we've proven the capability of these people to operate a nuclear power plant then I am proposing that the Navy simply produce more of them.
What I
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't take much to make you assume things, does it? Or to get a stupid idea stuck in your head.
USN reactors are not suitable for large-scale power generation on land.
Re: (Score:2)
USN reactors are not suitable for large-scale power generation on land.
Correct, but they are also miles ahead of anything that wind and solar has been able to do.
You are assuming I want the same *EXACT* reactors that the Navy is using and put them on land. I am not proposing that. I propose we find out what the Navy has done to produce a fleet of reactors, on time and on budget, and operate them safely for decades at a time. We need to then take that knowledge and apply it to reactors that are suited to civilian power.
I am also claiming that since the powers that be in the
Re: (Score:2)
It's still a dumb idea. Shipboard reactors function under very different conditions than land reactors, and cost a lot more. You'd wind up with a lot of expensive overheated reactors that don't produce much power. We need more nuclear power, but we need to do it halfway intelligently.
Global warming doesn't mean we have to commit fully to every stupid idea that comes along.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have one billion dollars you can build 100MW (rated) of wind power for $150M, get 30-50MW out of it on average (depending on location) and have $850M to spare for energy storage.
Or take the $850 million and invest in natural gas turbines. A mix of wind and natural gas would be as cheap or cheaper than coal and nuclear, would have half the carbon output of coal, and it works day or night and rain or shine.
But it does not tickle the imagination with stories of magic energy from splitting atoms, so we'd better not do it! :'(
But relying on a roughly 50/50 mix of wind and natural gas does not give a nation bragging rights of freeing itself of burning fossil fuels.
I am working on the assumption that nuclear power is prohibitively expensive but it is not. It would be cheaper than coal if the government
The study, more than 300 pages long (Score:2)
The study, more than 300 pages long and several years in the making...
Translation: Someone needed a job for some friends for a few years...
Re: (Score:2)
Because if it exceeds my attention span, it can't be Truth.
Re: (Score:2)
If you honest need 300 pages to come up with an answer, you're likely BSing...
I'm sure you can find some random example where it was needed, but "climate change could hurt someone, somewhere" isn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
That your report spans 300 pages doesn't mean you need as many.
A skill I picked as a lazy student is how to increase the number of pages without adding more content. Large magins, wide space between lines, wide font, bullet point lists rather than enumerations, lots of diagrams with a bit of text of text between them, summary pages that repeat what was already said...
Yes, I've seen a report just like this (Score:2)
Here [theonion.com]
The Good News Is (Score:2)
I've been reading, and one article is saying that at this point, the production of electricity via terrestrial wind (as opposed to off-shore wind) is the cheapest form of power generation.
Another article says that the 2020's will be the decade that the electric car comes into its own as battery prices become good enough that everyone can afford them.
Still another article is seriously proposing a world-wide grid of high-voltage power distribution, so that we can get power from, say, from Spain if the wind st
Who in the White House is a Climate scientist? (Score:2)
They are lawyers and politicians. Who among them are scientists for their warnings to have any credibility?
Funny, how the write-up said will, but the actual warning contains only the non-committal "could". Yeah, right, "15 minute call could save you 15% on car insurance". Sure.
The "could be" part makes the statement non-falsifiable and therefor unscientific [vcu.edu]. Nothing to see here, folks. Lawyers and politicians are mongering fears to th
Considering the alternative (Score:2)
It still beats the shit out of another ice age - even a little ice age. Europe was nearly deforested as people tried to heat their homes during the LIA.
AGW (Score:2)
The earth has been processing through Greenhouse and Icehouse stages long before humans ever walked on the planet.
I agree that the climate is changing, and yeah, maybe humans have some influence on how quickly these phases change, but are we going to stop it? No.
With our current level of technology, these phases will continue to happen, no matter what we do.
All we're doing as a species is either slowing down or speeding up the inevitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Try "speeding up" dramatically. The problem isn't that the climate will change over ten thousand years, the problem is that it will change in a century.
As Dr. Venkman would say: (Score:2)
Human Health is Overrated (Score:2)
Well.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Malarial swamps will creep northward, along with a whole host of other tropical diseases.
That's the kind of thing that happens when the planet warms up.
Re:Murder, Arson, and Jaywalking (Score:5, Informative)
Malaria was a common thing as far north as Washington DC up until 1850 when mass fumigation and swamp draining became a thing. Just a FYI.
Re:Murder, Arson, and Jaywalking (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Siberia as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Murder, Arson, and Jaywalking (Score:4, Interesting)
Of all the things that we need to be warned about, the White House is effectively stating the dangers we would have... by simply living in the tropics.
Essentially, they have basically said that having flowers and green plants for longer during the year is a problem. Hell, that's why I moved south to begin with. If I can have tropical weather by the time I'm retirement age, I won't have to migrate to Florida when I have blue hair!
Well, are you equipped to deal with living in the tropics? Perhaps you are, but many people are not - and when it comes to diseases, the richer countries in the world are going to receive a large number of climate refugees, whether they like it or not, as I'm sure you are aware. With a larger influx of people from poor, tropical nations, the risk of importing nasty diseases rises, and believe, there are many to choose from; I don't think the American healthcare model is geared to cope, certainly not if good healthcare is only really available to those who can afford to have good insurances.
Another, major factor is that a warmer climate will probably make drought a more prominent feature in America's heartlands - as well as making aquifers run dry - so less food will be produced. And so on - each of these challenges can be addressed, but it all adds up, and the most vulnerable will be hit hardest. Nothing new in that, but if you are getting to your retirement age, then you are probably getting closer to the category of "most vulnerable" and would benefit from taking the issue serious.
Re: (Score:2)
are you equipped to deal with living in the tropics?
Well, since we're all getting fatter, the next time you go up a pant size, buy shorts instead of long pants. It'll rake a few decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Of all the things that we need to be warned about, the White House is effectively stating the dangers we would have... by simply living in the tropics.
Which would come as quite a shock to people who live in, say Iowa.
Re:Murder, Arson, and Jaywalking (Score:5, Funny)
Your Florida will turn into the sea.
How is this an argument against global warming?
Re: (Score:3)
"Hot air" is a code word for bullshit which is the only thing WDC politicos know. They have no idea about what is valid and not in climate. They are on a mega-govenment control-all, tax all mode to empower themselves regardless if it is right or not.
They vote in the ACA and it is a blundering disaster, but it makes no difference as they now can use the IRS even more effectively to control the citizens and extract more taxes, fees and licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your Florida will turn into the sea.
How is this an argument against global warming?
I'm not sure what the problem is, really. You have a 20 story condo tower by the ocean, fine. Add a boat dock on the second floor and carry on. The first floor was just 1/20th of the building, anyway, and now it's an indoor pool.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But (Score:5, Informative)
EU's emissions are going down [europa.eu], actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The United States is leading the world in reduction in CO2 emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US was the only country to meet the Kyoto Agreement goals and we weren't even a signatory!
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
Al Gore
DRINK!
When I see Obama cancel even one of his tropical vacations with his entire staff because Air Force One uses more fuel in one trip that I will use my whole life, then I will take those worthless "White House Warnings" about climate change a little more seriously.
No, you won't.
Nah. They don't believe it themselves. (Score:2)
Shouldn't our government do something real about this ?
Nah. They don't believe it themselves.
If they did they'd immediately abort, and try to reverse, their current policies where they are pro-natilist and/or encourage immigration of lower-income people and the raising of their standard of living - and thus their "carbon footprint".
Giving more people the opportunity to burn more fossil fuels, and raise more kids to do the same than they could where they came from, is obviously at odds with a dire need to r
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that's a weird set of non-sequiturs. Kind of "I am passionate about these political issues, I'll bring them up regardless of what the discussion is about."
Here's a general principle: the higher the standard of living, the fewer children people have. (This is well known among demographers: it's called the "demographic transition.")
In the long run, our best option is to raise the standard of living of everyone, resulting in a planet without exponential population growth, but with higher quality of livin
Re: (Score:2)
This is well known among demographers: it's called the "demographic transition."
It's also temporary. This is well known to anyone familiar with evolutionary fitness.
Re: (Score:2)
No you don't. Fuck of you pathetic liar.
Re:The truth about global warming (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I'm angry because an AC is inventing a lie to try to discredit a branch of science that doesn't tell him what he wants to hear.
The universe doesn't owe us a fucking thing. It doesn't modify the effects of CO2 to protect your stock portfolio or keep the price of gas cheap. It doesn't give one flying fuck about any economic system. CO2 has the effects it has because that's the way it fucking is, and it is irrelevant how it makes you are the moron who made the original post feel. The universe does not care about cheap energy.
Re: (Score:3)
"It's snowing."
Not here
and theres no snow on the ground
typically there woulr be in early april
There was a record early 'ice=out' on the lake in the middle of town
Lat: 46.3N
Re: (Score:2)
climate is definitely a thing. Who denies that?
Re: (Score:2)
First, the "hottest years" we've been having are global averages for the whole year, not just snow outside someone's window one day.
Second, "hottest year on record" means "this year's global average temperature was higher than anything we've ever seen before", which could just be a fluke - if it wasn't merely the latest in a whole string of "hottest years on record" over the last decade. When the global temperature record gets broken in 1998, then 2010, again in 2014, and yet again in 2015, that's ridiculou
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
than anything we've ever seen before
But you're correct in that it's warmer now compared to the end of the coldest part of this interglacial. That coincides with us starting to take
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I just assumed no creationists debated this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I thought the point was obvious - you seem to have a mistaken impression of the times the events I mentioned happened at.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you completely misunderstand the times involved in my first post. Human civilization arose during the warm beginning of our current interglacial, 6000-10000 years ago. Humans (whilst not Sapiens, but our cousins that we've interbred with) migrated durin the Eemian 115000 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, "hottest year on record" means "this year's global average temperature was higher than anything we've ever seen before", which could just be a fluke -
No that's not what it means, the "hottest year on record" and highest global average temperature are two very different things, in most instances the average is higher either because the minimum temperatures are higher rather than the maximum temperatures are higher, or the data was adjusted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A Slashdot dude with a hook hand . . . (Score:2)
Ooooo, bro . . . that must hurt!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, yeah. And Carthage Must be Destroyed, too.
Like short term memory jokes, gratuitous slams of Republicans, based on stereotypes of them, get really boring after a while. If someone did this to a left-wing in-group the thread would be buried in posts cl
Re:FUD for you! FUD for me! FUD! FUD for everybody (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not going to respond to your strawman, to humor it would only help derail the actual conversation that most people try to have.
Destabilized climates can increase the strain on local and regional economies and make it easier for the scum of humanity to get a nice grip on desperate or angry populations. Climate change can only help spread the influence of terrorists and other evil organizations.
Rising temperatures will cause certain plants and animals to either move closer to the poles or die off. This may not seem like a big deal, and at a reasonable time scale it isn't really, ecosystems can adapt over long periods of time. Especially for people way up north. However, the speed at which the temperature could shoot up will not offer that window of transition for all life. This will also effect marine life. For every migration, there will be ecosystems that no longer match up correctly and species reaching dead ends they can't get around. Then you factor in the changing rain patterns... Droughts in places that aren't used to it, flooding in others. Human beings are NOT going to enjoy these changes, as crops will stop being as predictable and large regions may find themselves without cash crops they used to enjoy And those who hunt for food might not have much luck in that area anymore if their normal food start to move away en masse or die off. Granted, your family will likely have the money to import all the food they might need for a while, but for the poorest humans on the planet, this can be a pretty grim look forward.
I could get into ocean acidification (which is definitely NOT good, considering how much of our planet depend on small marine life to hold up the food chain and absorb CO2 from the air), rising sea levels that will devastate poor people and nations that can't afford big expensive walls to keep the sea at bay, all the mass migrations that will make Syria look like a fucking cakewalk, the occasional more powerful hurricane/typhoons, the slowing down of ocean currents that drag warm water into Europe, and the massive feedback loops from natural gas melting out of the permafrost and shrinking ice caps reflecting less sunlight etc (which is when things would REALLY get interesting)... but I don't know where you set your threshold for 'alarmist'. These things aren't just the ramblings of fear mongers, these are real and possible dangers based on pretty solid science that NEED to be brought forward. The reason why they may look like warnings is because, frankly, they should be. For a rough analogy, when there's a pretty good chance of hurricane hitting my area I damn well want to hear about it. Even if the chances that It'll kill me are very low and it's a week or so away, the threat is definitely worth getting a little worked up over.
Indeed, some people do choose to cry about the falling sky and employ hyperbole either for dramatic effect or just to further some stupid agenda. But if you're only going to concentrate on the loudmouths and overly comfortable politicians, it means you ignore the scientists, citizens, and other government workers who actually want to do something useful despite being held back by people with vested interests in keeping us on oil and coal. We don't need to be intentionally alarming to get the point across, but if we don't state the urgency now, eventually there might actually be cause for sirens going off and there won't be much anyone can do about it.
Re: (Score:2)
What "strawman"?
What I'm saying is we see a lot of people TALKING about global warming, and precious few people actually doing a goddamn thing about it.
You spouting off facts about rising temperatures and ocean acidification accomplishes nothing, because you think I'm a climate denialist.
So you go into full on didactic dumbfuck mode and start spewing factoids like Wikipedia was put under high pressure and then sprung a leak.
The problem is, I'm NOT a climate denialist. I realize there's a problem. What I w
Re: (Score:2)
See, again, it looks like you're saying almost nobody is trying to do ANYTHING. It can't be surprising for me to think you're misinterpreting the existence of bad actors and loudmouths as a lack of anyone trying to actually help. You spew off exaggerated emotional appeals in an insulting tone and expect me not to think you are trying to downplay the threats, which is as much a case of bad communication than me being bad at understanding your message. If it looks like a strawman and smells like a pile of str
Re: (Score:2)
To my eyes, it appears that almost nobody actually IS actually DOING anything. It's just lots of talking/shouting at this point.
And how is wanting REAL, tangible action on climate change somehow "downplaying threats".
It's like going over to a friend's house and they're constantly bitching about the leak in the roof.
At some point, you get fed up and tell them to fix it themselves or get it fixed!
I know the problems are big.
I know the problems are VERY (VERY VERY VERY) not simple.
I just want to get *started*
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm confused. Are you angry that "scientists, politicians, etc" AREN'T doing anything, or that they ARE "taking our money" in order to do things?
As someone involved in several renewable energy projects, I can confirm that we (scientists and engineers) ARE doing everything we can, limited only by the amount of money available. It's hard to design and build things that haven't been built before, and we're having to do it on the cheap so that we can compete per MW with coal. Government subsidy helps with this,
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we totally should have gone with the Republican health care reform plan. Which of course was...