Category: Academia

Categories
Academia United States of America

September 20, 1982 – “Carbon Dioxide, Science and Consensus” event

Forty two years ago, on this day, September 20th, 1982

Look for a file marked “carbon dioxide – climate change” and perhaps to your amazement you will read in this publication details of Reagan’s two-day gathering titled Carbon Dioxide, Science and Consensus, September 19-23, 1982. President Reagan’s right hand man and head of his Carbon Dioxide Research Division, Frederick A. Koomanoff, started the meeting and wrote into the record and with President Reagan’s and Congress’ full backing ..

“The Executive Branch and the Congress clearly regard the CO2 issue as one deserving serious, sustained and systematic investigation. The credit for this lies in the good science and solid research that has and is being performed.”

Will the wonders of that man ever stop? Reagan’s right hand man wasn’t all, he came at the urgency of the CO2 crisis two-fisted when his left hand man chipped in with even more in affirmation of the joint executive and congressional commitment to work to resolving climate change. That left hand was James C. Greene, Science Consultant to the Congress’ Committee on Science and Technology and he was the whip at the meeting there to make sure the attending scientists were fully engaged with the urgency of this topic.

“A veil hangs ominously over the earth, from pole to pole, over all the continents, and over the oceans,” Greene noted, adding, “To a significant degree, man has put it there. It is called simply enough, carbon dioxide pollution. If today’s worst case scenario becomes tomorrow’s reality, it will be too late to reverse the atmospheric buildup or to ameliorate the severe adverse human and environmental impacts of this pollutant. However, if we quickly develop a sufficient research program to provide the necessary answers, there may still be time to rend the veil or at least keep it from reaching the dimensions of disaster. This is a major goal of the Federal carbon dioxide research program and it requires the cooperation of scientists, governmental officials, and the citizens.”

President Reagan through his carefully scripted right and left hand men urged the scientists participating in the conference to not merely be scientists but rather to become energetic advocates, as they revealed in the prepared statement,

“Involvement of scientists at all levels of public policy development is absolutely necessary if correct decisions are to be made — C.P. Snow expressed it best in his book Science and Government, when he wrote, ‘I believe scientists have something to give which our kind of society is desperately short of … that is foresight.’ That is why I want scientists active in all the levels of government. You must provide the information and the foresight — no one else can. The carbon dioxide issue is a case in point,” and then concluded, “Until recent years, scientists were not even certain if the carbon dioxide buildup would increase or decrease the Earth’s temperature. Now, the controversy is, what is of impact and how long before it will be felt worldwide?”

So Dear Republicans fellow countrymen and women of every sort, remember the teachings of one of your heroes who knew what was important and stop with the blustering nonsense. Yes I know that the cost of doing the right thing is today being spun into a spectacular trillion dollar budget figure and comes with a cabal of folks all too eager to be appointed bankers, or is that banksters, of that money but we have a solution to that carpetbagger problem.

http://russgeorge.net/2015/12/09/dear-mr-president-please-return-to-your-old-haunts/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 341ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Ronald Reagan was being a complete prick on all things environmental. Or rather the people who would put the meat-puppet Reagan into Office were being pricks, They had put James Watt and Anne Gorsuch in with the goal of destroying the Department of the Interior and the EPA. But these two asshats were making enemies too quickly and not making good results.

Someone came up with a bright idea of holding a conference which I know virtually nothing about- whose idea, what purpose what invite list but anyway, so I am speculating a bit.

What we learn. It happened and it probably acted as a safety valve so that some of the more right leaning willing to go along with whatever they were told for the sake of their careers type scientists could point to that event and say “it’s not entirely fair to accuse the Reagan administration of doing nothing.” These sorts of events or documents, useful earthing devices so that the buildup of static electricity can be dissipated harmlessly. Kind of like a lightning rod.

What happened next. Reagan continued to be an asshat, albeit an increasingly senile one (there were rumours that some around him were considering invoking the 25th Amendment).

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

September 20, 1893 – first American-made gasoline-powered car hits the road.

September 20, 2013 – CCS project mothballed/killed.

Categories
Academia Canada

August 22, 1987 – “Civilisation and Rapid Climate Change” – a short book…

Thirty seven years ago, on this day, August 22nd, 1987, a conference took place in Canada, with the snappy title

Civilization and Rapid Climate Change, University of Calgary 22 – 24 August 1987. A short book “Thinking the Unthinkable” by Lydia Dotto emerged…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 349ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Canadians had been aware of CO2 build-up for a good 15 years, like everyone else (actually, it goes back to the 1950s, but only spottily). By the early 1970s, it was becoming more of a ‘thing’. By this time, probably the June 1988 Changing Atmosphere conference had been announced.

The person who acted as the rapporteur was Lydia Dotto, who had written a book about ozone. And, you know, the anthropologists and so forth were quite right when they said “don’t expect us to meet the challenge. That’s not who we are.” And so it came to pass…

What we learn is that before Thatcher and Bush, there were plenty of people saying, “watch out.” Not just climate scientists by the mid late 80s. It also had been that Canadian documentary and so forth. And they were keeping an eye on what was happening in the US. Carl Sagan Philip called the rest of it.

What happened next: Thatcher Bush and a generation of bullshit

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Dotto, L. 1987.

Also on this day: 

August 22, 1988 – scientists say “Australia, expect #climate refugees”

August 22, 1981 – New York Times front page story costs #climate scientists their jobs.

August 22, 2000 – Minchin kills an Australian Emissions Trading Scheme

August 22, 2011 – anti-carbon pricing rally flops

Categories
Academia Scientists

August 9, 1955 – Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass submits his paper

Sixty nine years ago, on this day, August 9th, 1955, Gilbert Plass submits a paper… You can read it here.

(Manuscript received August 9 1955

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 314ppm. As of 2024 it is 424ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Plass had been talking, researching, writing about CO2 buildup for a while. He made public statements in May of 1953 [see my Conversation article], at the American Geophysical Union that went viral. And here he was submitting an article to Tellus, a Swedish academic journal. (Tellus was the watering hole for atmospheric physics those people at that time.) 

What we learn is that smart people could see what was happening. 

What happened next. Plass wrote that paper. He wrote another paper, I think, in 1959. And he also had an article in Scientific American in 1959. That, btw, was advertised in the Observer.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

August 9, 2001 – OECD calls on Australia to introduce a carbon tax. Told to… go away…

August 9, 2013 – BP writes the rules (de facto)

Categories
Academia United States of America

July 19, 1977 – American public hears from a climate scientist

Forty seven years ago, on this day, July 19th, 1977 , Stephen Schneider lays it out.

Appearing on the Johnny Carson Show on July 19, 1977 a year after the original release of The Genesis Strategy, Schneider responded to a series of questions regarding the ability of scientists to predict the weather more than a few days in advance, a prospect that – given his experiences with Kellogg and Smagorinsky early in his career – appeared entirely possible. Other conversation topics ensued, including issues of drought, whether the climate was cooling or warming, and even whether a recent weather fluctuation caused a serious black out in New York City. Given what appeared to be signs that society was increasingly sensitive to even small-scale environmental challenges, Schneider argued for building further resilience into society. “The laws of nature frequently are not in line with some of our laws,” he stated in an attempt to distinguish between natural laws – which are stable and enduring – and man-made laws – which tend to be short-sighted, sporadic, and clumsy. Everything in human decision making, he believed, is a trade-off between risks and benefits and therefore decisions require the incorporation of value judgments to maximize margins of safety in spite of  existing uncertainties.55

 Henderson 2014 Dilemmas of Reticence

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 332ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Stephen Schneider was already well known because of his ice age prediction in 1971. He had just published The Genesis Strategy with co-author Lynne Merizow. Him being on Carson was a big deal, though. I think this is the first time he was on. 

What we learn is that a small number of scientists were trying to communicate this stuff. early on. 

What happened next: Schneider committed a faux pas by going off script and Carson never had him on again. Schneider kept being a public intellectual public figure. He was really good at what he did. RIP Stephen Schneider.

See also this excellent post – https://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/when-the-climate-change-fight-got-ugly/

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

July 19, 1968 – “man has already rendered the temperature equilibrium of the globe more unstable.”

July 19, 1976 – , Scientist warns “ “If we’re still rolling along on fossil fuels by the end of the century, then we’ve had it.”

Categories
Academia Energy

Horseshit, battery recycling and the roles of myths in the energy transition

We are, allegedly, in the midst of an “energy transition.” How very exciting! We are moving from dirty old fossil fuels, which are heating the planet, to lean clean green [fill in the blank – CCS, Nuclear, hydrogen, wind, solar, geothermal, grid-level batteries, perpetual motion machines] because we are a clever ingenious species interested in its own survival.

Apologies for the tone, but one of the things you see – if you’re a cynic who has read a history book, and/or lived through some history – is that we tell each other (and ourselves) stories we want to hear.  Crucially, these stories then shape our perception, shape the way we select evidence to confirm these stories (1).

The ability to see this, to name it, and to try to compensate for it, is one of those “core skills” that many claim they have. But it requires not just competence, but also confidence and courage. Saying that the pretty story that people are lulling themselves with (and getting vibes, attention and cash from) is just a story, and that there are plot holes big enough to let a category six hurricane through, can be a risky business.

Michael Liebreich delights in punching holes in stories.  Hydrogen was the subject of his latest effort. His lecture last Thursday was both brutal and hilarious.

Liebreich also co-hosts a podcast called Cleaning Up. The two obvious meanings are “making money” and “dealing with physical pollution,” but there’s a third (unintended?) meaning of de-mythifying, of clearing out the Augean stables of horseshit.

Ah,horseshit.  That’s where I wanted to get to. Listening to  Cleaning Up Podcast episode 165 Battery Recycling Is Here – But Where Are The Batteries?

I got to thinking of horseshit. Not what the guest – Hans Eric Melin – had to say.  He was crystal clear on what could and couldn’t be expected of battery recycling (from EVs, to grids etc etc). He also talked about the very persistent myth that only 5% of batteries are recycled/are recyclable. He explained where it came from, and how it keeps popping up. Listen to the podcast, and/or read him here on LinkedIn. 

Tl:dr – the two sources of the myth are a Friends of the Earth press release and the abstract of a scientific paper (the claim not supported in the body of that paper!).

And what the 5% figure reminded me of was the Great Manure Crisis of 1894 (told you I was old).

“Late 18th century cities like London and New York seemed to be ‘drowning in horse manure’. In London, where the horse-carried Hansom Cab occupied the streets, 50.000 horses produced 570.000 kilograms of horse manure and 57.000 litres of urine daily. Together with the corpses of death horses, the urine and manure started to poison the city’s inhabitants. In 1894 the Times predicted that “in 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.” The situation came to be known as the ‘Great Manure Crisis of 1894’ [source, and see here too].

Role of myths in transitions

Generally, we like to tell stories. They make us feel like we are in control, or – failing that – that we will be less surprised than other people when surprising/uncontrollable things happen.

This energy transition that we are going through (kinda sorta) is scary, disorientating, and discombobulating. Expect loadsa stories. especially from people who want your money.

Meanwhile, we like to hear stories – to scare ourselves with the bogey-man (mountains of horseshit will crush us!!). This is something you see especially in the 1970s disaster novels (ecology and/or technology running amok) that I read compulsively (2).

If you tell stories about how technological innovation X, which is necessary for the “transition” is impossible (“batteries aren’t being/can’t be recycled”) you look like (3) the grown-up in the room, the person who is not a gullible rube taken in by all the hype (4).

And so, the myths persist, with new factoids (67.4 percent of statistics are made up on the spot) and anecdotes (its plural is not data) sprinkled on top.

What is to be done?

The usual – the Cocker Protocol.

But also holding our stories up to the light, thinking when they are too good to be true etc. 

Thinking about the role of metaphors, memes and fables in thinking about energy – there’s a great book  – Energy Fables: Challenging Ideas in the Energy Sector.

But also, and I cannot emphasize this enough, the Cocker Protocol.

Footnotes

  1.  And if anyone tries to tell you that academics are partially or entirely immune to this tendency, you have my permission to laugh in their faces.
  2.  The 1970s were the time when Whitey stopped being in charge in the way he had been for hundreds of years.  The techno-eco-disasters are in part a way of working through that loss of primacy. But also, giant ants are fun.
  3.  In your own eyes. It turns out other people don’t always share our opinions of ourselves. Who knew.
  4.  There are also pleasures in being the reply guy, the concern troll, but that can be for another time.

References/further reading

Morris, E. 2007. From horse manure to horse power

Rinkinen, J (ed) 2019 Energy Fables: Challenging Ideas in the Energy Sector

Categories
Academia Interviews Science Scientists United Kingdom

“Institutions would rather watch the world burn than bite the hand that feeds them” – Interview with organiser of open letter to Royal Society about its climate stance

Professor Jason Scott-Warren (Twitter account here) is the organiser of an open letter signed by 2500 academics to the Royal Society about its climate stance. He has kindly answered a few questions about the campaign. (You can read an August 2023 article in The Guardian here. There’s a piece in the Financial Times [paywalled] today, about the RS saying ,in effect, “yeah, nah.”

BTW, the Royal Society has – understandably – a long history in the UK around climate change, which will have to wait for another day. For now, there’s this from 2006, when it chided Exxon for funding denialist groups.

1.  What is the campaign trying to achieve?

The campaign is asking the Royal Society to speak out about the fossil fuel industry and how dangerous it is, both in its determination to carry on exploring for new reserves and in its lobbying activities. Both aspects of its behaviour should be red lights for scientists, at a time when the Paris Agreement goals are hanging by a thread. If the Royal Society were to make a statement about this, it would help to galvanise action in the UK academic community, and to sway public discourse.

2.  How did it get going?

I’ve been involved in campaigns at the University of Cambridge, initially to persuade the University to divest from fossil fuel companies and more recently to ask it to cut all research and philanthropic ties with them. It became clear to me that some scientists at the University were willing to give the likes of BP and Shell the benefit of the doubt because the Royal Society had not given a clear steer in this area. So I decided to start an open letter calling for an unambiguous statement. The letter now has more than 2500 signatures from UK academics.

3. What has the Royal Society’s response been – was it in anyway surprising?

The Royal Society has engaged with us, albeit at a pace that has not always inspired confidence. They agreed to hold a meeting with a small group of signatories, and discussed our demands in detail. But we were not surprised when they eventually turned our request down, pointing to all the other worthy things that they were doing on climate, and saying it would be inappropriate to condemn one sector ‘within a complex system where multiple actors need to engage urgently with these challenges’.

Decoded, this means they have swallowed the fiction that fossil fuel companies are ‘part of the solution’. At some point in the future, the story goes, these companies are going to suck all the carbon out of the atmosphere and bury it under the ocean, just so long as they can carry on generating obscene profits in the here-and-now. The susceptibility of the Royal Society to this narrative is not entirely surprising. The idea of a technological solution to the climate problem flatters their rather narrow sense of their mission. More broadly, the entanglement of some parts of the scientific establishment with the petrochemical industry is so deep that they cannot register what is happening before their eyes. They cannot admit that they have created a machine that has run out of control, and which is rapidly destroying the biosphere.

4.  What are the next stages, and what help are you looking for?

In a way, this is all just more evidence (as if we needed it) that petitions and polite debates don’t work. Money trumps everything, and institutions would rather watch the world burn than bite the hand that feeds them. We need more direct action to demand changes that will never come by asking nicely. But I do think we need to keep putting pressure on the timid institutions that we inhabit, and to alert them to the fact that they have urgent moral responsibilities that they are failing to address. Their behaviour is going to look as shameful in retrospect as propping up the slave trade or apartheid. They still have an opportunity to rectify this.

5. Anything else you’d like to say.

We should celebrate the institutions that are taking a stand in this area—the UN, the International Energy Agency, the BMA and others.

Categories
Academia Technophilia technosalvationism United States of America

March 8, 1999 – Direct Air Capture of C02 mooted for the first time

Twenty five years ago, on this day, March 8th, 1999, an “audacious” idea is unleashed on the world…

Klaus Lackner posits Direct Air Capture 24th Annual Technical Conference on coal Utilization & Fuel Systems, March 8-11, 1999 Clearwater, Florida

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 367.4ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that for the previous 10 years, technology types had been thinking about carbon capture and storage as a technofix for the socio-technical problem of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations increasing. And all sorts of ideas had been put forward, mostly around making coal burning more “efficient”, getting more bang for the buck, decreasing the intensity. And along comes the idea of direct air capture. 

What I think we can learn from this  is that ideas which seem very new often usually have a long pre-history. It’s worth knowing that, at least at outline level, so that you will not be so easily seduced by shiny promises. 

What happened next DAC really stayed on the backburner for about another 15 years. From about the 2015 Paris Agreement onwards, people start paying money and pretending to take it seriously. We’re just not going to do DAC at the scale that would require; it’s insane. It’s just another dream of technosalvation.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

March 8 – International Women’s Day – what is feminist archival practice? 

Categories
Academia Australia

March 4, 1970 – American scientist vs ice age fears in Melbourne

Fifty four years ago, on this day, March 4th, 1970, a scientist talks about a human-induced Ice Age. Not likely, he finds.

I find that the present particulate loading would have to be increased by a factor of 5 to produce a 3°C drop in mean planetary surface temperature. This work was done in November and December of 1969 and was presented before the International Solar Energy Society in Melbourne, Australia, on 4 March 1970. 

Earl W Barrett,, 1971 letter in Science

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that scientists, especially in America, were beginning to look seriously at carbon dioxide buildup at national conferences, starting to get findings. And scientists fancied an international jolly – sorry, “opportunity to network and further the advance of the human species’ knowledge.” 

Australia was still in the dark ages on carbon dioxide buildup, it would be 1971-72 before scientists (Pearman, Pittock) started being paid to look at this stuff. Meanwhile, Melbourne was in the grip of its pollution fever. So Barrett’s comments will have free received interest in the media.

Also, in September 1969, the C02 issue had already been discussed by Australian scientists – in public fora.

What I think we can learn from this

“International networks of concerned scientists” etc. Science is international blah blah. But from the late 1960s, carbon dioxide was being looked at.

What happened next

In 1972 a clean air conference in Melbourne that had a specific set of papers about CO2 buildup. We ignored the scientists until 1988. Then we heard them but have basically ignored them since then. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

March 4, 1998 – The Australian Greenhouse Office gets a boss…

March 4, 2003 – “Luntz memo” exposes Bush climate strategy 

March 4, 2023 –Letter in FT: Global carbon price call is a classic delaying tactic

March 4, 2003 – Republicans urged to question the scientific consensus…

Categories
Academia United Kingdom

November 9, 2000 – Tyndall Centre launched

Twenty three years ago, on this day, November 9, 2000, an academic collaboration finally ground into existence, after a 1997 Tony Blair election promise…

The Tyndall Centre is a national United Kingdom centre for trans-disciplinary research on climate change. It is dedicated to advancing the science of integration, to seeking, evaluating and facilitating sustainable solutions to climate change and to motivate society through promoting informed and effective dialogue. The Centre was constituted in October 2000 and launched officially on 9 November 2000.

http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/contacts/v.php?id=2713

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Blair’s Labour Party had made a lot of promises in the run up to the 1997 election. One of these was the creation of a scientific body in the UK to look at climate change. And so on this day in November 2000, over three years later – nice sense of urgency Tony! The Tyndall Centre had been launched.

This was against the backdrop of stalling international climate negotiations in the midst of the uncertainty about whether Gore or Bush would be president in the end. George W. Bush’s dad’s mates on the Supreme Court fixed it for him. With the collapse of the negotiations at The Hague it was all looking pretty bleak. 

What the Tyndall Centre would do, if one were to be cynical about it, is offer institutional homes for disciplinary and interdisciplinary work around climate change. Ultimately there’s something deeper and longer going on here isn’t there? There is a failure to really solve these problems. So you have to ask yourself, why do we keep doing what we keep doing? It’s because this change is really difficult and it’s comforting to keep doing what we’re doing. Fewer costs. It’s easier to be a winner on a losing team than a loser on a losing team because even if you switch, you yourself will not derive benefit, but I digress.

What I think we can learn from this

Academics gonna academic. It’s no bad thing.

What happened next

Tyndall is still going, still producing great work (I mean that sincerely, not snarkily!).

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Academia Activism Australia

August 14, 2002 – Australian economists urge Kyoto Protocol ratification

Twenty one years ago, on this day, August 14, 2002, Aussie economists tried to get the smallest, most inadequate action taken…

“In a further response to what many see as Australia’s failure on the environment, more than 270 of the country’s academic economists called on 14 August [2002] for Prime Minister John Howard to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without delay. Howard rejected the Kyoto Protocol in June this year, stating that it would not be in the country’s interest to ratify without the inclusion of the US and developing nations. This is despite the fact that a recent survey of Australian citizens revealed that 71% believe it would be in the country’s interest to ratify.

“As economists, we believe that global climate change carries with it serious environmental, economic and social risks and that preventive steps are justified,” says a statement by the economists. “Policy options are available that would slow climate change without harming employment or living standards in Australia, and these may in fact improve productivity in the long term.”

However, Environment and Heritage Minister Dr David Kemp, told journalists on 19 August that Australia intends to keep to the targets laid out in the Kyoto Protocol, despite the fact that the country will not ratify.”

http://www.edie.net/news/16/Australias-environment-is-in-reverse/5878/

Excerpt from report by Radio Australia on 14 August

The Australian government is under further pressure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in the lead-up to the World Environment Summit in Johannesburg later this month. Samantha Hawley reports:

[Hawley] More than 250 economists have sent a message to the federal government, urging it to sign up to the protocol before the Johannesburg summit begins. Clive Hamilton, from the policy think tank, the Australia Institute, says the economists believe it will increase jobs and living standards.

[Hamilton] It really does throw the question to the prime minister on what basis is he making these claims on the economic cost ofKyoto. [End of recording]

[Passage omitted]

[Hawley] The call comes as the government moves to release its long-awaited greenhouse gas abatement figures tomorrow, which were originally due out before the election.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 371ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Australian Prime Minister John Howard had, on Earth Day (June 5) announced he would not send the Kyoto Protocol for ratification through the Australian parliament. Clive Hamilton/Australia Institute got 270 economists together to do an open letter.

What I think we can learn from this

This is the sort of thing you have to do to raise the cost of bad behaviour, show that other people see the world differently. It didn’t work, but that’s not the fault of the people who tried it.

What happened next

Howard continued to be an asshat. Knocked down an Emissions Trading Scheme in 2003.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.