This manntastic event looms large. With the irascible Dr. Mann pitted against Moore and Curry, fireworks are almost guaranteed. Titley is a lightweight and he’ll be overshadowed by Mann’s huge ego and need to control the conversation. Their idea to hear a “collegial and balanced” discussion may very well be a pipe dream, especially after what happened the last time when Mann and Curry were testifying before congress.
The event is open to the public.
Here are the details from the website:
Climate change is undeniable. But is human activity causing it, and if so, to what degree? How are current public policies helping or hurting the situation? All these questions and more will be addressed at Spilman Thomas & Battle’s Environmental Forum: Conversations on Climate Change.
We’re thrilled to be bringing world-renowned scientists and policy experts in the field to the stage at the University of Charleston to discuss these issues from both sides of the table–expect an exciting exchange of ideas on the causes and effects of climate change, the prognosis for the future, and what can and should be done to prepare for those changes. We’ll hear from those whose research leads them to believe human activity is having a dangerous impact on the climate, as well as those who believe such theories are overblown and unsupported by the science.
Join us for this unique opportunity to see scientists who rarely share the same stage, presenting a balanced discussion about this important topic affecting our planet, our lives, and our businesses.
- Dr. Michael E. Mann, Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University
- Dr. David W. Titley, Rear Admiral USN (ret.), Professor of Practice in Meteorology; Professor, Pennsylvania State School of International Affairs; and Director, Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk
- Dr. Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada
- Dr. Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
Tickets are $15 per person, $20 if purchased after May 29.
When
Tuesday, June 12, 2018 from 6:00 PM to 7:30 PM EDT
Where
Geary Auditorium, University of Charleston
Charleston, WV 25304
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A couple of lukewarmers against a Klimatarian, no contest, they are all pathetic.
Too bad NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch isn’t arguing the skeptics’ side. That chick is a ferocious debater. She’d make Mann cry like a little schoolgirl.
http://cdn4.everyjoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/dana-loesch-guns.jpg
Dana is mean. Mann can debate this schoolgirl. She won’t make him cry
That left eye looks pretty evil all right . Hard to hide good looking .
Patrick Moore will bring a practical side to this .
I think the poster advertising this event should look more like a professional wrestling poster, and the event would be more entertaining if conducted like a professional wrestling match.
It would be a climate-debate smack down.
Michael Mann would pull a hockey stick out of his trunks.
I seriously doubt he’s that well endowed.
Sure, why not?!
Poster Headline:
CLIMATE TAG TEAM MATCH: Moore/Curry Duo Scorch While Mann/Titley Pair Sag!
Mann vs. Maddie in a cage match!
Well ….. a tip to Dr Curry if she reads this.
The theory of CO2 driven climate change is a physical process that according to physics, would be expected to be consistent across the globe. BUT … the data clearly show that there is NO consistent effect across the globe. We do not have any Global Warming, all we have is a warming Arctic, to a questionable degree, as we don’t have good land/ocean based measuring systems in the Arctic.
Contrast that to Global Greening ….. another physical process …. has occurred globally with explanations for differences.
Bottom line, this is a case of virtual world vs real world, and creative presentation (I.e. Global Average), vs reality, …. a regional effect that can’t be due primarily to CO2.
Meanwhile back in the lab the science goes on. The sideshow of public debates entertain the masses, but they do not change the science. Year and year out, old skeptics die. And none leave behind any body of work that can be built upon. None offers an alternative theory, by design in fact. By design they do not offer testable alternative accounts of the climate. Like 911 Truthers who point to gaps in evidence, the skeptics have one goal. Create doubt about the best explanation. Their goal is not understanding. This in part explains why skeptics never question their own doubt. Doubt, not the reasoned understanding of uncertainty, is their product. Folks will have a debate. Science won’t watch. Science doesn’t care. Science only pays attention to the better explanation, and doubt explains nothing. Year and year out, old skeptics die. They leave behind no science for others to build on or improve; they mentor no graduate students; they teach no classes; they publish no papers, no data, no code. Oh ya, they post on blogs. Nature bats last, and the only defense you have against her as a scientist is to leave behind a better understanding of the world. Doubt aint a legacy, it’s a temporary tactic employed in the service of better understanding.
Rather than posting over unders on Mann being a dunce ( he will be) we should do over/unders on prominent skeptics not croaking in the next 10 years and leaving behind nothing.
What explanation does climate science have? A trace gas 410ppm by volume and ~600ppm by mass causes the temperature of the lower troposphere to rise so high that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will cower in fear and melt away? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
The inconvenient questions that the IPCC nor Michael Mann can’t answer.
1) Why did sea level rise faster in early 2Oth century than now and even now is not accelerating?
2) Why do only rural land temperature data sets show no warming?
3) Why did climate scientists in the climategate emails worry about no warming trends? They are supposed to be unbiased either way.
4) Why do some local temperature land based datasets show no warming Ex: Augusta Georgia for last 83 years? There must be 1000’s of other places like this.
5) Why do 10 of the 13 weather stations in Antarctica show no warming in last 60 years? The 3 that do are near undersea volcanic ridges.
6) Why does the lower troposphere satellite data of UAH show very little warming and in fact showed cooling from 1978 to 1997?
7) Why is there only a 21% increase in net atmosphere CO2 ppm since 1980 but yet mankind increased fossil fuel emissions CO2 by 75%?
8) Why did National Academy of Sciences in 1975 show warming in the 30’s and 40’s and NASA in 1998 and 2008 not show nearly as much warming for those time periods?
9) Why has no one been able to disprove Lord Monckton’s finding of the basic flaw in the climate sensitivity equations after doubling CO2?
10) Why has there never been even 1 accurate prediction by a climate model. Even if one climate model is less wrong than another one it is still wrong.
11) Why do most climate scientists not understand the difference between accuracy and precision?
12) Why have many scientists resigned from the IPCC in protest?
13) Why do many politicians, media and climate scientists continue to lie about CO2 causing extreme weather events? Every data set in the world shows there are no more extreme weather events than there ever were
14) Why do clmate scientists call skeptics deniers as if we were denying the holocaust?
!5) Why did Michael Mann refuse to hand over his data when he sued Tim Ball for defamation and why did Mann subsequently drop the suit?
16) Why have every climate scientist that has ever debated the science of global warming lost every debate that has ever occurred?
17) Why does every climate scientist now absolutely refuse to debate anymore?
18) Why do careers get ruined when scientists dare to doubt global warming in public?
19) Why do most of the scientists that retire come out against global warming?
20) Why is it next to impossible to obtain a PhD in Atmospheric science if one has doubts about global warming?
21) Why is it very very difficult to get funding for any study that casts doubt on global warming?
22) Why has the earth greened by 18% in the last 30 years?
23) Why do clmate scientists want to starve plants by limiting their access to CO2? Optimum levels are 1200 ppm not 410ppm.
24) Why do most climate scientists refuse to release their data to skeptics?
25) Why should the rest of the world ruin their economies when China and India have refused to stop increasing their emmissions of CO2 till 2030?
26) Why have the alarmist scientists like Michael Mann called Dr. Judith Curry an anti scientist?
27) Why does the IPCC not admit that under their own calculations a business as usual policy would have the CO2 levels hit 590ppm in 2100 which is exactly twice the CO2 level since 1850.?
28) Why do the climate modellers not admit that the error factor for clouds makes their models worthless?
29) Why did NASA show no increase in atmospheric water vapour for 20 years before James Hansen shut the project down in 2009?
30) Why did Ben Santer change the text to result in an opposite conclusion in the IPCC report of 1996 and did this without consulting the scientists that had made the original report?
31) Why does the IPCC say with 90% confidence that anthropogenic CO2 is causing warming when they have no evidence to back this up except computer model predictions which are coded to produce results that CO2 causes warming?
32) How can we believe climate forecasts when 4 day weather forecasts are very iffy?.
33) Why do all climate models show the tropical troposhere hotspot when no hotspot has actually been found in nature?
34) Why does the extreme range of the climate models increase as the number of runs increases on the same simulation?
35) Why is the normal greenhouse effect not observed for SST?
36) Why is SST net warming increase close to 0?
37) Why is the ocean ph level steady over the lifetime of the measurements?
38) what results has anyone ever seen from global warming if it exists? I have been waiting for it for 40 years and havent seen it yet?
39) If there were times in the past when CO2 was 20 times higher than today why wasnt there runaway global warming then?
40) Why was there a pause in the satellite data warming in the early 2000’s?
41) Why did CO2 rise after WW2 and temperatures fall?
42) For the last 10000 years over half of those years showed more warmung than today Why?
43) Why does the IPCC refuse to put an exact % on the AGW and the natural GW?
44) Why do the alarmists still say that there is a 97% consensus when everyone knows that figure was madeup?
45) The latest polls show that 33% do not believe in global warming and that figure is increasing poll by poll ? why?
46) If CO2 is supposed to cause more evaporation how can there ever be more droughts with CO2 forcing?
47) Why are there 4 times the number of polar bears as in 1960?
48) Why did the oceans never become acidic even with CO2 levels 15-20 times higher than today?
49) Why does Antarctica sea ice extent show no decrease in 25 years?
50) Why do alarmists still insist that skeptics are getting funding from fossil fuel companies ( when alarmists get billions from the government and leftest think tanks) and skeptics get next to nothing from either fossil fuel companies nor governments for climate research?
51) If the Bloomberg carbon clock based on the Mauna Loa data, in the fall and winter increases at a rate of only 2ppm per year; then why do we have to worry about carbon increases?
52) Why arent the alarmists concerned with actual human lives. In England every winter there are old people who succumb to the cold because they cant afford the increased heating bills caused by green subsidies.
53) Why did Phil Jones a climategate conspirator, admit in 2010 that there was no statistically meaningful difference in 4 different period temperature data that used both atmospheric temperature and sea surface temperature?
54) Why does the IPCC still say that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is a 100 years when over 80 studies have concluded it is more like 5 years?
55) Why do all global climate alarmists say that corals are dying due to bleaching when Dr. Peter Ridd (who has published over 100 papers) has proven that coral bleaching is a defensive mechanism by corals in relation to temperature change in the water.
56) Why does the IPCC still release temperature and sea level data from NOAA and NASA when Tony Heller has proved that those agencies have faked data and made improper adjustments to the actual raw numbers ?
57) How does the IPCC explain that Professor Miskolczi showed that despite a 30% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere in the period 1948 to 2008, the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere was found to be unchanged from its theoretical value of 1.87
58) Why has the Global Historical Climate Network temperature data set for ~ 1000 temperature stations in the United States shown no warming over the entire 124 year period when you just take the daily maximum and average it out for the 365 days of the year?
59) Why has the global average downward infrared radiation to the surface shown no increase ever since the CERES satellite started collecting data in the year 2000?
60) Why has the global average outgoing radiation to space shown an increase since 1974 according to the NOAA satellite info?
61) How would Antarctica ever melt if almost all of the land mass never even comes close to 0 C even in summer? Same for Greenland.
“13) Why do many politicians, media and climate scientists continue to lie about CO2 causing extreme weather events? Every data set in the world shows there are no more extreme weather events than there ever were”
I haven’t seen any official pronouncements on this but it looks to me like we are having record low numbers of tornadoes this year. We have had very few tornadoes in Oklahoma, and the ones we have had were low-energy tornadoes. And this seems to be the case all across the nation.
The tornado season is ususally just about over in Oklahoma by June. It all depends on storm fronts coming through which tend to be few and far between beginning in June and going through August. Some years we have a wetter early summer which can spawn tornadoes into June, but that is not the norm, so these record low numbers should continue this year.
The Alarmists claimed that CAGW would cause an increase in the number and severity of tornadoes, but here we are in supposedly the hottest decade ever, yet the weather is doing the opposite of what the Alarmists claimed. “The Science” seems to have missed the mark. No legacy here for those hard working climate scientists. They have nothing to leave to their posterity but bad guesses.
2) Why do only rural land temperature data sets show no warming?
Most of your points can be easily refuted (or in some cases simply not taken seriously) but this one struck me as odd because Curry proved that rural temperature sets show a more pronounced warming trend than urban ones. Maybe she should bring that up and get people to stop pretending otherwise.
You would not be able to see the difference between all sites and rural sites unless you looked closely, and if you could spot any difference you would see that rural sites show very slightly more of a warming trend, not less.
A couple of supplementary questions:
Why does the Vostok ice-core record show temperatures changing BEFORE carbon dioxide concentration?
Why do temperatures in the Vostok record DECREASE at the moment CO2 concentration is highest?
Why has there never been a thermal runaway in Earth’s history, even when CO2 concentrations were far higher than today?
One thing I’ve noticed about Scott, he’s always proclaiming that skeptical points can be easily refuted, yet he never actually does refute anything.
He just screams louder and louder that all the scientists agree with him so shut up.
Very true, Steven! The Creationists love a ‘debate’ too, because it also gives them a chance to air their beliefs and wild conjecture. Hell, the Flat-Earthers had a conference in the UK recently and there were all kinds of ‘discussions’ about wacky conspiracy theories of all sorts, probably including global warming. Sound familiar?
Mosher: “Science only pays attention to the better explanation, and doubt explains nothing. Year and year out, old skeptics die. They leave behind no science for others to build on or improve; … Doubt aint a legacy, it’s a temporary tactic employed in the service of better understanding.”
Science also pays attention to the null hypothesis; and doubt, in the form of exposing the weaknesses and even falsity of many warmists’ claims, shows that the null hypothesis (i.e., nothing threatening is in train) is “the better explanation,” and therefore that CO2 mitigation is most likely unwise.
Mencken said, “Pedagogues believe in immutable truths and spend their lives trying to determine them and propagate them; the intellectual progress of man consists largely of a concerted effort to block and destroy their enterprise. Nine times out of ten, in the arts as in life, there is actually no truth to be discovered; there is only error to be exposed. In whole departments of human inquiry it seems to me quite unlikely that the truth ever will be discovered.”
Voltaire said, “doubt is uncomfortable, but certainty is absurd.” He also said, écrasez l’infâme! . Voltaire left quite a legacy.
Steven Mosher, well stated.
The best explanation is that the current warm period is either 100% or nearly 100% natural.
Funny how hundreds and hundreds of papers that show how little impact CO2 has is dismissed as being non-existent.
I guess that’s the only strategy left once you realize you can’t refute them. Just declare they don’t exist.
So says Steve Mosher, who goes on about science without ever having displayed any understanding of it. And who works for a guy who evidently does not understand instrumental resolution, and who serially neglects systematic measurement error. Great credentials all.
Your side has captured the journals, Steve. Kudos to you all for that great accomplishment. Skeptical scientists are disallowed publication. The case of Richard Lindzen is the prominent example. Then the witlessly arrogant go on about how skeptics don’t publish. Among the more intelligent that assertion would prove their dishonesty. Among the rest, just a display of their triumphalist stupidity.
He works for and frequently defends the guy who replaced a good temperature series with one known to have many problems based mostly on the fact that the bad record was longer.
That’s rather disingenuous of you, Steven. If one’s position is the null hypothesis, how does one “offer an alternative theory,” or publish papers, data, or code? The null hypothesis here is that there’s no significant relationship between increasing global CO2 and the Earth’s temperature, so how does one prove the negative? CO2 has increased in a linear fashion over the last 60 years, while the Earth’s temperature has not. It’s been up a bit, down a bit, up a bit more, down a bit, in a pronounced stair-step fashion.
It rose long before there was enough human-produced CO2 to possibly make a difference, and it fell during the 1940s through the 1970s when humans were really cranking it out. From 1957 to 1980, CO2 rose 20ppm while the Earth cooled. If you can’t explain why the Earth cooled while CO2 rose by 6.4% of its 1957 value, you don’t have a theory at all. It can’t explain that cooling, it can’t explain the warming from 1900 to 1940, and it can’t explain the most recent pause.
In point of fact, it’s more like the “God of the Gaps” argument, in which a supernatural force is used to explain the giant holes in a theory. CO2 is the magic molecule, which can cause warming, cooling, flood, draught, or any other event its believers can’t explain otherwise.
Mann’s portrayal of himself as victim, in the congressional hearings, was Oscar worthy.
Waste of time.
Mann and Titely would refuse to accept or recognize white as white or black as black colors, light and dark, wet versus dry, cold versus hot, day versus night, etc.
Mann and Titely have demonstrated they are incapable of accepting correction, refutation, rebuttal, honest observational proof. Plus neither of them, minds twisting reality to fit their nonsense.
Which is a major reason climate science is regressing steadily. Without honestly and transparently questioning, evaluating, analyzing and testing reality, science can not progress.
+10
Dr Curry, if she reads some of the posts and comments here on WUWT, will be much better prepared for an actual debate than she was in that hearing in congress. I did watch that whole thing, and she should have read from Mann’s actual words that he called her a denyer…I hope she surprises us.
I hope someone like Moore asks him if he believes that CO2 is pollution. And also has “scientist” Mann described CO2 as Carbon?
Curry and Moore should ask some direct questions to Michael Mann to see if he really has any answers that are true or demonstrable.
Demonstraitable…that’s my spell check…
DEMONSTRABLY you had it CORRECTLY the first time !!
It is spelt DEMONSTRABLE !
Who cares if people who deny some of the basic science are called deniers? May as well dwell on whether Curry said she’d believe her own work with Muller, because she’s never going to answer and it gets us nowhere.
And by definition most anything is a pollutant at specified levels. Excess CO2 is a pollutant because of the result, but why spend time on a definition that makes a small percentage of the population uncomfortable?
Mann never called CO2 carbon, but CO2 is part of carbon emissions as discussed by scientists. Or are you implying that people would be confused and think that carbon emissions means solid chunks of carbon are the problem? Makes no sense to give educated people a summary of what they would have learned in high school or sooner.
I think they should skip over the quibbles of the non-scientist (like your points above) and get to the point. Curry is known to dance around the subject, but when pressed admits the obvious to her audience. Expect her to pretend that knowing exactly what percentage CO2 plays on warming the planet to be one of her sticking points.
The only people who are denying basic science are you trolls.
It won’t be a complete waste of time, but it’ll be painful. I’m glad they’re talking in public forum. Should be done often now. But it’ll be ugly and will take a long time to sharpen the blades if we’re even given the chance. If the alarmist left tyrants get in WH, talks are over.
Mann can at least be commended for agreeing to debate. It’s also good to see he seems to have lost a bit of weight thus doing his part to reduce his own environmental footprint.
Mann should start with the obvious facts, and see if Curry flinches when she hears the basics that no scientist should ever counter. Mann should return to the basics every time Curry wanders off into one of her Gish Gallops and tries to muddy the waters.
We know the earth is warming, and we know the primary forcings. If Curry wants to say that we’re not sure about the exact percentages of those forcings, then OK, but their rating is pretty solid. But Mann should insist she state what the top few forcings are so they can get out of the muddied waters. Ask her to quote herself about CO2 and temperature.
Get Curry to summarize her work on adjustments so we can put an end to the constant craziness that comes from people who think scientists are “fudging” or “tampering” the numbers. None of that panel should have to spend more than 5 seconds on something that should have been explained in a middle school science class.
We do not know the primary forcings. We have no science which claims to know what the primary forcings are.
Models that are tuned to show that CO2 is a primary forcing are not science.
I am one of the organizers of this event and thought I would reach out to this forum to answer several of the questions asked in the comments section. We have asked each panelist to answer two questions: 1) to what extent does science show man-made CO2 emissions are accelerating climate change; and 2) based upon the first answer, what mitigation needs to be done to offset the effects of man-made CO2 emissions on the climate.
The proceeds from the event will be used to cover the cost of the event. We purposefully refused to have organizational sponsors for the event in order to avoid the appearance of bias in either direction.
Each panelist has 15 minutes to make their own presentation and then there will be a 30-45 minute question and answer session. We have a group compiling and vetting questions for panelists and welcome any suggested questions you may have for a specific panelist. We have advised each panelist to expect hard, but fair questions, so if you have any questions that meet those two requirements that you would like for us to consider, please forward them to me at npreservati@spilmanlaw.com
Finally, we are prohibited from broadcasting the event live or redistributing the recording.
“1) to what extent does science show man-made CO2 emissions are accelerating climate change;”
The climate changes continually because it is a chaotic system. Climate change is the natural order of things. We have no evidence that climate change is “accelerating” and we have no evidence that human activity is affecting the natural course of the climate.
The question you should ask the alamists is where is their evidence that humans are affecting the climate and causing it to do things it otherwise wouldn’t do naturally.
I would like to hear the answer to that one.
“Finally, we are prohibited from broadcasting the event live or redistributing the recording.”
So we won’t actually get to see this debate if we are not there in person?
Can you explain your comment that you are “prohibited” from broadcasting live or redistributing the recording?
First, are you recording the event? And second, who or what is “prohibiting” you from broadcasting or redistributing a recording of the event?
In any multi-gazillion variant tele-connected system, confounding factors are around every corner, There is no way we are at an understanding level regarding just the natural drivers, to have any confidence in human-drivers. The models and reconstructions Mann clearly has put all his bets on, was a step made waaaayy too early in what should have been the better slow walk to better understandings of natural variation.
That makes little sense. The body is complicated, but we know a temperature spike when we see it, and you don’t have to measure every square inch of the body. Factors around every corner, but when you find the cause you won’t find a doctor saying “we have no idea if the infection caused this” or “this is not a fever because people have survived 106°F before.”
Earth is warming and CO2 is the primary forcing as per climate scientists including Curry. No need to know every single forcing to know that.
As always, Scott contradicts himself.
He admits that the system is complicated, then he proclaims that because CO2 is going up and temperature is also going up, this proves that CO2 caused the temperature to go up.
And that’s without pointing out that temperatures have gone up, down and sideways while CO2 has been going up during the last century.
In centuries past, CO2 has shown no correlation with temperature.
Just look at the atmosphere’s profile. CO2 is 400 ppm all the way up to 70 km. The atmsophere cools with atlitude in the troposphere, warms with altitude in the stratosphere, cools with altitude in the mesosphere, and warms with altitude in the thermosphere. CO2 at 400 ppm seems to be able to warm and cool, depending on altitude. Does that even seem remotely possible? Clearly, something else affects atmospheric temperature.
Extremely important topic that needs to be discussed with a view to recommending policies, both national and international.
I hope to attend, but if I can’t I hope people in the audience can ask a few of the following questions:
1) If you control for H2O and isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures, you find that CO2 has zero impact. Antarctica, the ideal control for H2O, shows no warming over the past 50 years and 33% increase in CO2.
2) The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is through the GHG effect and thermalization of 13 to 18 micron LWIR. Those wavelengths don’t penetrate or warm the oceans. Given ocean cycles control the atmospheric temperatures, how can you blame CO2 for atmospheric warming when it can’t warm the oceans.
3) The Hockeystick and recent NASA Sea Level chart show multiple dog-legs which don’t line up. What about the underlying physics of a CO2 molecule, which shows a log DECAY, could ever explain a dog-leg is temperatures and sea level, especially when they don’t match on each chart.
4) The N Pole and Greenland show sub-zero temperatures most of if not all of the year and evidence shows the ice and glaciers are melting FROM BELOW!!! How does CO2 cause warm oceans and geothermal activity to melt the glaciers?
5) Long-term instrumental temperature data controlled for H2O don’t show the warming claimed in the hockeystick, why don’t thermometers argee with the hockeystick?
6) Climate models based upon CO2 being the main driver of climate have failed miserably, why is that?
7) MODTRAN shows that CO2 has zero impact on the layer of the atmosphere where all ground measurements are taken. The CO2 signature isn’t identified until an altitude of 3km when H2O precipitates out of the atmosphere. Why are you right and MODTRAN wrong in modeling CO2?
8) The physics of the CO2 molecule is that it thermalizes LWIR between 13 and 18 micron. Those wavelengths have a blackbody temp of -80 degree C. How do these low energy wavelengths warm anything?
9) Washing my black car the other day I burned by hand from steam from my wash cloth. A black car in the shade and exposed to the identical LWIR CO2 back radiation was cool. How can CO2 cause these huge temperature differentials? Or is the claim that CO2 causes record daytime temperatures simply false?
You can click the link below to register to join us next Tuesday, June 12 at 6:00 P.M. via a live webinar.
https://conta.cc/2svAO9R
Is there a video or transcript of Hal Doiron debating Mann anywhere? It has been referenced a couple times on this thread – would love to see it.