Support the climate scientists being harrassed by the US Congress - Sign the petition! 04 July 05

To understand the Republicans in congress and the White House one needs to understand that they do not subscribe to the scientific method of thought,evidence and conclusion. They are driven by a bible and greed based ideology. It is no use to wring one’s hands and wonder what these American Republicans are thinking about. They do not think , it is not in their nature to think, they are possesed of absolute knowledge through their bible beliefs. So they attack science, that is nothing new in the history of the church. One needs to view this thing as church versus science not politics as usual. Add unlimited greed as a belief system equal to their religion and Republicans can be understood. Give up on putting scientific evidence before them, they don’t feel science can add anything to the bible, so they ignore science. I see no easy solution to the American anti-science approach to possible global climate change and sudden climate shift.

I think I was the one who initially raised this on this Blogg, I admit to supporting Joe Bartons enquiry.

My understanding of the issues raised by Joe Barton are these

(1) Why were Michael Mann and his collaberators lead authors in the 2001 TAR. This is of consequence because as we all well know the chapter he wrote highlighted his own work and downplayed or ignored other work that might contradict his. This is a salient question, in effect Michael Mann was given a forum to promote himself to the detriement of others and their views

(2) How was Michael Mann funded? This is not a question to seek sources of dubiuous funding but rather to identify how much came from the Federal Government. Researchers who receive Federal government funding have obligations to meet certain criteria with regards to transparency and auditability, criteria which Michael Mann appears not to have met (he may have but let him demonstrate this in a public forum.)

(3) The questions on his qualifications and CV are standard for any expert witness testifying before Congress or in courts of law and are not persecution but rather to put them on record and an opportunity for him to establish his credibility

Ideally Science is an exercise in seeking objective truth regardless of the political or commercial ramifications. Unfortunatley in our imperfect world there are often reasons for distorting scientific results to advance a political or commercial agenda.

Have you read the article a few weeks ago that surveyed scientists and found that over 30% admitted they had at some time during their career fudged results, ignored inconvienient data etc to produce results that were advantageous to their sponser. This happens in both Governmental and Private enterprise research, it is an issue that Science and scientists must confront.

Even Gregor Mendle has been accused of fudging the numbers in his famous pea experiment because they come out too perfectly, far more in line with his theory than those who have repeatd his experiment have ever been able to acheive. We all have a tendency to see things that bolster our world view and to be blinded to those that contradict them (I am fully aware of this fault in myself.

The best defense against this fundamental difficulty in reaching objective answers to difficult and controversial questions is frank and open discusion and transparency by all parties involved in the methods and reasoning behind their conclusions.

Isn’t the purpose of this blogg to be part of that process?

Have you read the article a few weeks ago that surveyed scientists and found that over 30% admitted they had at some time during their career fudged results, ignored inconvienient data etc to produce results that were advantageous to their sponser.

Can you, Andrei, distinguish for us the public and private scientists in this article?

That is: was it public or private scientists that comprised the 30%? Be specific. Also include the professions.

D

Andrei,

I think you do make a fair point in one sense, but I absolutely do not like the tone of the letter. It really is not a reasonable request, in my view – given the likely enormous amount of work required by a short deadline.

The text is also quite legal (eg. “but not limited to”) – and my immediate response would be to consider hiring legal advice to be able to respond in a fair fashion.

Once that is in place, and perhaps a few months to prepare his case, I hope Mann would welcome his opportunity to present his case at a senior level.

BTW, who is going to pay for Mann’s time? In his shoes I would, tactfully, explain that before I started work on this, that I would look to agree a suitable fee-based system for this task.

Also, I think we do need to be aware that scientists are not prepared for public debate in the way that politicians are. We should be concerned that some may feel very stressed by the experience – and there may be a risk of suicide (as with the case of Dr. Kelly). Therfore, perhaps scientists could decline to take part?!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-824676,00.html

Peter

Peter; I have just re-read the letters, there are five of course, one to Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri who is head of the IPCC, one to Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr. who is head of the National Science Foundation and one each to Drs Mann, Hughs and Bradley.

The body of all five letters are the same but each recipient is given specific questions to answer.

For the two Bureaucrats letters of this nature are a daily occurence, delegated to underlings to gather the data and draft a response, which is what I am sure will happen.

For Dr Mann et al as far as I can tell they are under no obligation to answer their letters. They can if they choose to ignore them. If they do however their credibility will suffer and in all probability they will find it harder in the future to obtain Federal Grant money.

Dr Mann embroiled himself in the political process when he accepted a role as a Lead Author on the IPCC ( a political not a scientific organization), now he has to play by the rules of that game or bow out. Its a hardball world.

Climate Science has become politicized. This is a two edged sword, on one hand it makes it easier to gain funding for climate research (good) but on the other hand it can lead to distortions in the way studies are conducted and their results analysed and interpreted (troublesome). Andrei

If I may, Peter,

For Dr Mann et al as far as I can tell they are under no obligation to answer their letters. They can if they choose to ignore them. If they do however their credibility will suffer and in all probability they will find it harder in the future to obtain Federal Grant money.

You are predetermining the outcome. If I were Mann, a year ago I would have retained counsel and prepared for this day. Barton may be made to look a fool.

Dr Mann embroiled himself in the political process when he accepted a role as a Lead Author on the IPCC ( a political not a scientific organization), now he has to play by the rules of that game or bow out. Its a hardball world.

Mann got embroiled when IndyFunded groups politicized the process in order to influence the outcome.

Climate Science has become politicized. This is a two edged sword, on one hand it makes it easier to gain funding for climate research (good)[...]

This is an unsupported statement.

on the other hand it can lead to distortions in the way studies are conducted and their results analysed and interpreted (troublesome). </i>

The FUDbots say this all the time. Can you, Andrei, give one example where this has happened? Be specific and cite the paper, and give the evidence for the distortion, and show what should be the correct finding.

Thank you.

Andrei & Dano,

I can’t pretend to know how Washington operates – I work in business. And if you wanted a business solution, you wouldn’t send a letter like that!

You may be right, Andrei, but my feeling is that if Joe Barton was genuinely interested in understanding the issues, and mediating the differences between the WSJ & Mann, he could be a lot more polite and respectful! Something like …

Dear Professor Mann,

We understand that you are an expert .. I wonder if you could help .. there are somethings we are not sure about .. could you explain the differences between the WSJ and your account … etc. etc.

I’ve looked over the letters again before responding.

To me they are pure ‘Bureaucratese’ Not friendly and warm but in a formal style used by Government and Business.

Peter you work in business, have you never been audited? Surely you know what that is like, they want to see everything, ask difficult questions etc. Its uncomfortable and they always find things that you are doing wrong. A report emerges at the end of the process which makes everyone grumpy and usually leads to lots of work fixing the things they have identified as wrong (or from time to time someone being led away in handcuffs).

Well what is happening here is analogous to being audited. That is Joe Bartons job. At the end of the day his role is to ensure that Government policy is the appropriate and that Government money is spent wisely.

Personally I feel it is terrible shame that the debate on climate science has become so acrimonious. I dont think this helps advance our understanding of what is happening in our world. Rather it causes people to take hardened positions and not listen to opposing arguments with open minds. And open mindedness is a prerequisite for successful science.

You make me think more and more that I am flying in the dark on this issue. As far as I know, Dr. Mann might be very happy to be quizzed like this by Joe Barton. Does anyone know Dr. Mann to ask him?? Could he even respond?

I have been in situations where I have been attacked (last year, as a member of the parish council we were accused of unethical conducted and we held a public meeting which helped focus massive local support for us – particularly the chairman) and other situations which I have faced normal legal procedures. The fact is, I really don’t know the context of Joe Barton’s letters. Thanks for the discussion. (Anyone else have more information?)

Anyway, I think we can assume that Dr. Mann would appreciate our thanks for his work and his efforts with http://www.realclimate.org/.

Here is a link to Waxman’s response: http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050701123028-71010.pdf

He suggests Barton & Co have never shown interest in global warming, but only want to dismiss it. He states: “These letters do not appear to be a serious attempt to understand the science of global warming. Some might interpret them as a transparent effort to bully and harass climate change experts who have reached conclusions with which you disagree.”

Maybe the Church of Satan’s (yes, there really is such a church – I saw it in San Francisco) Unholy Bible of Sin. The Christian-Judeo-Islamic tradition fully supports protecting the environment:

1. In Genesis 2:15 God commands Adam to “keep” the garden. It is God’s 1st commendment to people.

2. God had Noah prepare an ark & preserve all species – the 1st Endangered Species Act! Currrently our actions are expected to cause up to 50% of all species to become extinct in 100 or so years; with the possibility of runaway global warming that figure over the next several thousand years might be much higher.

3. God in His 10 Commandments tells us not to kill. Many environmental harms we humans cause either directly or indirectly kill & harm people. For instance, it is estimated that human-caused global warming is killing 160,000 people per year, and this is predicted to escalate greatly. Acid rain is estimated to kill 100,000 people per year. And other environmental harms & pollutions kill a vast number of people. A top climate scientist at the University of Chicago found that 1/4 of our CO2 emissions may stay in the atmosphere for up to 100,000 years (the common claim had been CO2 stays for 100 years), continuing to cause global warming well into the future. In a way it is sort of like shooting bullets that keep killing and killing; we may not be aiming at people, but they do get killed by our intentional (not accidental) actions.

---

It gives me no solace that Bush, Barton, & their ilk seem to be headed for a much hotter place than a globally warmed world; I would much rather they repent & join us in combatting global warming.

An article recently appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, July 2, 2005, by Linda Morris: NOW GLOBAL WARMING IS A MORTAL SIN

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/now-global- warming-is-a-mortal-sin/2005/07/01/1119724815830.html also at: http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=43699

It reads: A key international body of the Anglican Church has declared the wilful destruction of the environment to be a sin as a core group of Australian religious leaders have placed their political weight behind a campaign to fight global warming.

The environmental network of the worldwide Anglican communion has framed an urgent and strongly worded statement to the church’s global leaders warning humanity has failed to fulfil “God’s will for creation” and of the imminent “perilous and catastrophic collapse” of the Earth’s ecosystem.

The advisory body calls for environmental education of its clergy, churches to be built to conserve energy and for pressure to be applied on governments and industries to build sustainable communities “beyond” the Kyoto Protocol. The protocol has not been ratified by Australia.

“We are becoming increasingly aware that the world is being harmed by us, and we know how to eliminate the harm we are doing,” the statement says.

“This is breaking one of the most fundamental commandments known to us, in that we are knowingly causing the degradation of the world’s ecosystems out of our greed and selfishness, rather than living with and protecting the design that issues from the creator’s generosity.”

The far-ranging statement was framed at a conference in April hosted by Canberra’s Anglican bishop, George Browning, who is the network’s new convener and was endorsed at last week’s meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in Nottingham.

While not binding on the wider communion, it was a platform for further dialogue, said Ann Young, chairwoman of the environment working group for Australia’s Anglican church.

The move comes as the Uniting Church, the National Council of Churches in Australia, Catholic Earthcare Australia and the Australian Conservation Foundation joined forces to circulate a brochure to parishes across the country titled Changing Climate, Changing Creation. It urges a letter-writing campaign to push for increased spending on public transport, new targets and timetables for increased use of renewable energies and a commitment to the Kyoto Protocol.

The partnership recognises common ground between some church leaders who say they must care for “Creation” and environmentalists who believe the churches offer moral traction to the debate.

The conservation foundation’s campaign director, John Connor, welcomed the churches as allies. Climate change was a hard issue to convey, he said. “We recognise if it is to have any traction people have to realise … we need to emphasise the moral urgency.”

Catholic Earthcare, set up in 2002 by Australian bishops, will host a national conference in November of church, scientists and aid organisations to discuss ways to tackle climate change and alert the church to the “reality” of global warming and the need for action. Its chairman, Bishop Chris Toohey, said when it comes to persuading people to change lifestyles nothing had greater moral force than God’s.

Are the letters really as hostile as you imply?

The journal Nature has an op-ed and an interview today. Excerpts:

Nature 436, 1 (7 July 2005) | doi: 10.1038/436001a

Climate of distrust

Six months into President George W. Bush’s second term of office, partisan politics continues to widen the gulf between researchers and the administration.

[...]

As a congressman, Barton is well within his rights to request information from researchers funded by US taxpayers. His letters to the climate scientists are not a subpoena and do not legally require a response. But their tone leaves no doubt as to his agenda.

[...]

And from the interview with Pachauri:

What was your first thought when you read the letter?

I was very surprised. This is the first time I have received a letter of this nature.

[...]

Anyway, Andrei, you quite clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. Sorry to be so blunt on this site, but the FUDbots are coming out of the woodwork on this one and the talking points (one of which you repeat here) are, simply, created for the rubes.

Best,

D

Peter, you’re right: if you want something done well, you don’t send a letter like this. Knowing this, one can infer this is grandstanding or intimidation.

Best,

D

Maybe the congressman wants to get to the bottom of what the GW community is holding up as the holy grail of warming… a grail which (in the realm of possibilities) may be full of rust!

Peer review is only as good as who is allowed to review it. Evidently, some “scientific” journals only allow certain people to review/ critique published studies.

The article below is a restatement of earlier points about the hallowed hockey stick.

http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2004nov20_c.html

Responses to any critcism of the holy hockey stick have been…

1. The critics weren’t climatologists and therefore are not qualified to critique the article. 2. Prove that the earth is not warming. 3. If you state something provide multiple sources of evidence or we will continue to say you are wrong and spewing propoganda for the rubes. 4. The IPCC and TAR are gods and everyone else who dares to ask questions are feeble-minded blastphemers who blindly follow the evil Bush plot to destroy the earth. 5. You cut and pasted this…

Hey, Jimbo, the next time you post here, can you leave out the agitprop phraseology, marginalization words, talking points, and unsupported allegations?

It would make it easier to find your point.

Check it out: I took out all the words that were part of my list above from your post. This is what I got:

Maybe the congressman wants to get to the bottom of what the

The article below is a restatement of earlier points about the

See? contentless. Not helpful to express your argument. And your italicized thing below? Scary.

HTH,

D

there is just as much possibility it may be wrong in the other direction (it is not telling us the truth about how much worse GW will be, because of it limitations or margins of error, or outright errors). Afterall, many climate scientist receive gov. grants & since they know the gov. is adament about denying GW, that may skew their results. I don’t really think it does-the scientists at realclimate.org seem very sincere-but it is a possibility. For instance, I had a relative in the EPA at the time Reagan became president. Another relative in a chemical analysis firm heard from a lower person in the EPA that our relative had shifted to the anti-environmental side in order to climb up the EPA ladder.

As for your 2nd point - prove GW is not happening (before we stop reducing GHGs?) - that is position reasonable people living in the world should take to avoid the possibility of serious GW problems. Scientists have a different standard of avoiding false positives (GW is not actually happening when they claim it is happening) to protect their reputations (i.e., they must prove GW – which they have done in many different ways, including but not limited to the Hockey Stick). This is a standard so high that it could very well be quite dangerous for people living in the world. That is why I did not wait around for 95% certainty of GW (reached in 1995), before reducing my GHGs.

However, avoiding false negatives (proving GW is not happening before stopping reduction in GHGs) is not even the correct standard for people living in the world in most cases, since nearly everything that generates GHGs (coal buring, etc) also causes many other problems (environmental & nonenvironmental), so that even if GW was totally disproven at the 99% confidence level, we should still take all those measures that also reduce other harms, and most certainly those that help improve our personal & national & world economy, & improve our health & well-being. Many many measures do this, and we are fools - esp. Rep. Barton & our other “leaders” - not to follow & promote these measures.

In other words, the best of all worlds would be one in which GW is not really happening, but we think it is, and take measures to reduce it, thereby reducing many other harms & helping our economy! I’m hoping to wake up from this nightmare of GW & find out that’s what’s happening.

Thanks Lynn!

That’s a very relevant & interesting letter. It does look as though Barton does not have honest intensions.

All the best,

Peter

See this Chris Mooney article for some perspective on the Republican attacks on Michael Mann and others. http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=9932

It really does seem that malign forces are at work and some in the US power structure think they can get away with bullying the scientific community and bullying their way round the planet for that matter.

But Bush and his Big Oil buddies are increasingly out of step. See this by Polly Ghazi from the Guardian http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,,1521688,00.html

And from Chris Rose there is news that some in the US are preparing for the inevitable and are taking advice on how to reposition themselves on energy. See newsletters at www.campaignstrategy.org/newsletter_index.html.

Inward looking American nationalism has had its day and Bush will soon be seen as yesterday’s President.

Douglas Coker

PS And I’m very much looking forward to Chris Mooney’s book “The Republican War on Science” arriving in September.

This made me laugh out loud! ;-)

Thanks Lynn. It’s refreshing to read the like of Henry A. Waxman’s letter. Just a pity he has to follow protocol and refer to Joe Barton as “Honorable”

Douglas Coker

As a previous student of ocean science who has now moved into the field of renewable energy research, I must point out that scientific funding is controlled more and more by corporate entities via their contol of politicians. Originally, bodies like the National Science Foundation were set up to protect scientific inquiry from the winds of political change. Under the new regime of Bayh-Dole (the 1980 legislation which allowed corporate interests into the public academic system in the name of ‘technology transfer’), profitability is viewed by many as more important then scientific integrity. This attitude has been adopted (and even explicitly stated) by uiversity administrators across the country. The effects are now being seen across the academic board.

Essentially, what is going on is that large fossil fuel corporations and their associated financial institutions are leaning on their political allies (tools?) to undercut both global warming research as well as renewable energy research. The strategy is to attack scientists who disagree with their position, and to promote ‘scientists’ who sing the party line – a brief review of the history of tobacco companies and their ‘scientists’ is appropriate in this regard. The goal, of course, is protection of their energy market share. Averting catastrophic global warming will require a shift from the current 3% renewable energy sourcing to something like 70% renewable energy sourcing – meaning of course, a vast shrinkage in market share and profits for the current ‘energy sector’.

Climate scientists appear to have been relatively shielded from these ‘harsh realities’, but perhaps they should talk to graduate students in, for example, biomedicine and biotechnology – where the rule of the day is secrecy, fraudulent science, and the pursuit of lucrative patents. What appears to be going on in climate research is that a massive PR campaign is attempting to use the ‘disinterested third party’ technique to attack bodies like the IPCC. After all, who is going to believe ExxonMobile if their CEO states that “There is no link between global warming and increases in hurricane intensity and frequency.”? That won’t play very well on MSNBC. Now that people like Dr. Fred Singer have been thoroughly discredited as paid tools of the fossil fuel lobby, the PR campaign is seeking a new group of ‘respected independent scientists’ who will provide appropriate sound bites.

From a strictly scientific viewpoint, the oft-repeated statement that “if global warming was responsible for the increases in Atlantic hurricanes, we would have seen it everywhere – the Pacific, the Indian, etc.” is a logical case of false association which absolutely ignores the effect of the equatorial African landmass (which they do take into account in their specific 2005 hurricane predictions, fer chrissake). In one breath, Gray, Landsea et al state that you have to consider the details of the global climate system, and in the next they refute that very statement! Scientists should not put up with this kind of blatant hypocrisy.

Let me guess – these guys had all their grants approved this year.

I forgot to add this to my italicized list of excuses for not accepting any criticism of the hockey stick as the GW proof.

6. ... don’t include anything that interpreted as…agitprop phraseology, marginalization words, talking points, and unsupported allegations and be sure to insert lame graphics link to deflect from any points made

Jimbo,

I do think your first point is worthy of some serious discussion. I enjoy reading non-fiction books and business, the environment, branding, market research and so on. Typically an author has some theory that they would like to present – and all too often their view of the world becomes seen through the lens of their expertise.

Although this can lead to profound insights, it can also lead to a lack of balance. I find politicians and economists are particularly dangerous professionals in this respect (and some economists really do come up with some bizarre ideas!) – partly because they have so much power.

Here are a couple of example. In a book called “Complicated Lives” by the Future Foundations’ Willmott & Nelson (2003), there are some admirable market research statistics about lives (in the UK) are changing.

http://www.futurefoundation.net/Coverage_ft25Sept2003.html

It also touched on Global Warming as a an example of how people can be in a state of fearfulness. They also describe how it is in the interests of NGOs to get people concerned about issues – as that is what they are paid to do. All this analysis sounds very compelling – but it assumes that the world is all about human civilisation (& nothing else really matters). It dismisses Global Warming as anything real (outside of “people”); and in my view, that is a big big mistake.

Another example is when I went to see Sir Martin Holdgate at the RGS last November (actually, also with Mark Lynas). Sir Martin Holdgate works for the UNEP & talked about the current state of species loss around the world. As I recall, in his view, the main problem was that natural scientists and economists needed to work together; that the solutions lay largely with economists, yet there was a gulf of misunderstanding between natural scientists and economists.

I can’t help feeling that is a profound problem we have.

With respect to the work that climate scientists are currently doing – they need to be able to communicate this to politicians/economists. There should also be respect for the climate scientists work, but also openness as to the methods.

So, the “net net” is I think we should encourage ways that other professionals can communicate and interact with climate scientists – and be aware of the difficulties involved. I think medical science is a good example of the way that it can be done!

Regards,

Peter

Jimbo,

I do think your first point is worthy of some serious discussion. I enjoy reading non-fiction books and business, the environment, branding, market research and so on. Typically an author has some theory that they would like to present – and all too often their view of the world becomes seen through the lens of their expertise.

Although this can lead to profound insights, it can also lead to a lack of balance. I find politicians and economists are particularly dangerous professionals in this respect (and some economists really do come up with some bizarre ideas!) – partly because they have so much power.

Here are a couple of example. In a book called “Complicated Lives” by the Future Foundations’ Willmott & Nelson (2003), there are some admirable market research statistics about how lives (in the UK) are changing.

http://www.futurefoundation.net/Coverage_ft25Sept2003.html

It also touched on Global Warming as a an example of how people can be in a state of fearfulness. They also describe how it is in the interests of NGOs to get people concerned about issues – as that is what they are paid to do. All this analysis sounds very compelling – but it assumes that the world is all about human civilisation (& nothing else really matters). It dismisses Global Warming as anything real (outside of “people”); and in my view, that is a big big mistake.

Another example is when I went to see Sir Martin Holdgate at the RGS last November (actually, also with Mark Lynas). Sir Martin Holdgate works for the UNEP & talked about the current state of species loss around the world. As I recall, in his view, the main problem was that natural scientists and economists needed to work together; that the solutions lay largely with economists, yet there was a gulf of misunderstanding between natural scientists and economists.

I can’t help feeling that is a profound problem we have.

With respect to the work that climate scientists are currently doing – they need to be able to communicate this to politicians/economists. There should also be respect for the climate scientists work, but also openness as to the methods.

So, the “net net” is I think we should encourage ways that other professionals can communicate and interact with climate scientists – and be aware of the difficulties involved. I think medical science is a good example of the way that it can be done!

Regards,

Peter

Thanks for this, Douglas.

So, it looks like this Barton enquiry will be a “good thing”, as Mann has said ..

“In the meantime, Mann provided the following comment: “I am pleased that the U.S. Congress has shown in interest in the issue of climate change. I am confident that when Congress takes a look at the science, they will join with the consensus of the world’s scientists that the earth is indeed warming, and that human activity has played a primary role in the warming observed in recent decades.”

BTW, there seems to be a rush on writing about this issue. The Canadian naturalist Fred Bodsworth is writing “a comprehensive, behind-the-scenes chronicle of the battle that the leading climate change scientists are fighting against political inertia” since “there is no populuar book on climate change yet”.

http://www.ontarionature.org/onnature/feature_1.html

Looks like we will have quite a choice!

Regards,

Peter

Some in Congress are listening – even Republicans: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-07-18-warming-congress_x.htm

Here.

Enjoy.

D

re how science is manipulated by the powers that be. Some scientists at the Formaldehyde Institute were actually put in prison for falsifying results.

An environmental coordinator friend at a community college was forbidden from discussing how a vegetarian diet helped the environment – by meat industry board members. She could have won a Supreme Court case on it, but who is going to take such things to court? My church (with big meat contributors) tried to shut me up on the same topic, but I flashed a news article from that same day about meat linked to prostate cancer in front of them, and told them I would not shut up.

So glad you are in renewable energy. If subsidies were withdrawn from conventional energy, it’d have a much better chance. And if all environmental costs were added into conventional energy (compensation going to its victims), renewable would probably be about 1/20 the cost of it.