Crying shame

[sunchaser]

I tend to trust science. When 97% of scientific studies are pointing to one side of the argument, it is usually found to be true. But some will always cling to the few differing pieces of evidence if it suits their personal beliefs.

I'm unsure of which scientific studies you are referring. One thing for sure though, all credible scientists agree that studies indicate that the world's climate is always in a state of flux. Secondly, the same group of scientists agree Beijing, Mexico City and New Delhi suffer from severe air pollution. Beyond these two agreement areas, politics and funding steer findings whether NASA, Greenpeace or NOAA - this is a fact.

During the Pliocene era (3.3 million years ago) the sea levels were about 25 meters higher than today with northern temperatures about 3 degrees C higher than today. Florida was very small with no voter fraud possible. Then came the Pleistocene, plunging the north and south extreme latitudes into a severe deep freeze. This deep freeze ended 15,000 to 30,000 years ago with the onset of global warming. The mile deep glacier over Chicago finally melted about 20,000 years ago as global warming intensified.

A noted friend (PhD in Glacial Geology) of mine points to studies finding that global warming will continue for about another 100,000 years. This will mean two things. First, lots of grant money will continue flowing greatly assisting his heirs ongoing inherited business and secondly, waterfront development will move inland.

 

[BrianSmith]

"those people are at least trying to make the world a better place," For who???

Surveys show the size of the rain forest is increasing...
.

If you can point to one single scientific study that shows the world's major rainforests are not shrinking, I will send you a check for $100.

 

[BrianSmith]

I'm unsure of which scientific studies you are referring. One thing for sure though, all credible scientists agree that studies indicate that the world's climate is always in a state of flux. Secondly, the same group of scientists agree Beijing, Mexico City and New Delhi suffer from severe air pollution. Beyond these two agreement areas, politics and funding steer findings whether NASA, Greenpeace or NOAA - this is a fact.

No, this is an opinion.

During the Pliocene era (3.3 million years ago) the sea levels were about 25 meters higher than today with northern temperatures about 3 degrees C higher than today. Florida was very small with no voter fraud possible. Then came the Pleistocene, plunging the north and south extreme latitudes into a severe deep freeze. This deep freeze ended 15,000 to 30,000 years ago with the onset of global warming. The mile deep glacier over Chicago finally melted about 20,000 years ago as global warming intensified.

A noted friend (PhD in Glacial Geology) of mine points to studies finding that global warming will continue for about another 100,000 years. This will mean two things. First, lots of grant money will continue flowing greatly assisting his heirs ongoing inherited business and secondly, waterfront development will move inland.

And every peer reviewed scientific study of our atmosphere shows a very clear direct relation between the recent rise in global temperatures and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. You're talking about natural rising and falling of global climate that has happened over cycles lasting tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of years. The increases we've experienced over the past 100 years are unlike any that have been discovered in the earth's history, and to deny that human-produced CO2 is a major cause is simply absurd. I don't mean to be disrespectful, sir, but I'm confident that your sources of data are not valid - not peer-reviewed studies. I am unaware of a single peer-reviewed study showing otherwise, but if you know of one, please provide us with a link to it.

 

[BrianSmith]

How do we know what is fact and truth? It seems that we can find books, professional studies, and papers to support any view. Recently I read that a paper supporting global warming was found to have mathematical errors on page one, all of a sudden another theory goes up in smoke. So what to believe?

Scientists developed the concept of peer review a long time ago. In order for a scientific study to have any validity, it must be peer reviewed, and stand up to that scrutiny. If it does, that generally means it's a good study, with good methods, valid assumptions, appropriate sample sizes, etc., etc., etc. If a study hasn't been through peer review, it's just someone's opinion. (Like the one "study" that showed vaccinations caused autism. The guy later admitted he simply made up the data. That wouldn't have lasted five minutes under peer review.)

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,

Like everything else, the body of scientific "knowledge" is evolving. Since day 1, man has been attempting to explain and understand. In spite of what may or may NOT be current scientific "fact", so much is unknown that a great deal of what is accepted as "fact" is still only a best guess. A fairly well documented guess but a guess, all the same, IMO. So far, "close enough" has worked in sufficient cases to the point where we are, where we are, today.




While studies, papers and reports stating cause and effect may be in question, the empirical data is there for all to see.
As mentioned, the Chesapeake is in pretty bad shape. Weather patterns appear to be shifting and as the OP posted, species are being lost.

 

[sunchaser]

No, this is an opinion.



And every peer reviewed scientific study of our atmosphere shows a very clear direct relation between the recent rise in global temperatures and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. You're talking about natural rising and falling of global climate that has happened over cycles lasting tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of years. The increases we've experienced over the past 100 years are unlike any that have been discovered in the earth's history, and to deny that human-produced CO2 is a major cause is simply absurd. I don't mean to be disrespectful, sir, but I'm confident that your sources of data are not valid - not peer-reviewed studies. I am unaware of a single peer-reviewed study showing otherwise, but if you know of one, please provide us with a link to it.

And herein lies an interesting problem Brian, claimers rise to their well entrenched positions very quickly for the strangest of reasons. Nowhere did I say that man is or is not causing a rise in CO2 atmospheric levels. In fact I noted dirty man caused air in several places. My geologic world 101 ice age short note provoked the typical alarmist response. I might as well have been talking about the snail darter and someone would have raised a stink.

Or maybe it was a comment about chasing grants and funds? Nothing the matter with that, a man's gotta eat.

So Brian, is there a peer reviewed study about the perils of an exploding world population? Yes there are. But many peer reviewed contrary studies saying more people are OK if certain (unattainable) assumptions are used. BTW, where did the Aral Sea go and why? So many issues.

 

[Delfin]

Debunked by who?

That is still the number that NASA are quoting. But you can’t believe them. Unless you believe that hoax about putting a man on the moon.

Ah, well thank you for not associating a reality you disagree with to not believing in the holocaust. Just not believing we landed on the moon.

Regarding who debunked this bit of data fiddling by climate alarmists, Legates, et al, published a peer reviewed paper in Science and Education that used the commonly held falsehood you base your opinion on as a good example of "Agnotology", which is the study of culturally induced ignorance to shape opinions among people who don't have good information otherwise. In this case, the bit of misinformation used to shape opinions is

"that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus (on human induced global warming) exists".

Simply looking at the data in the "study" that first floated this nonsense, the proposition that most warming of the planet since 1950 was caused by humans was in fact, only believed by 64 of 11,944 papers, or .3% of respondents. Pro tip" .3% is not the same as 97%.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9647-9

Now, if the question is not whether humans are mostly responsible for impacts on climate, as the 97% consensus falsely asserts, but whether humans have an impact, then you would likely have nearly 100% agreement - the so called Butterfly Effect. Now ask the same group whether a warmer climate is bad or not, and you'd get another answer. Then ask whether there is anything we could do to impact current warming short of killing 3/4 of the people on the planet and going back to the culture of the 1500's and you would get another answer.

As I said, the idea that "scientific consensus" is a meaningful concept as applied to any topic is dubious, but in the case of AGW, it's a complete fraud.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. s. "...where did the Aral Sea go and why?" To irrigate the cotton fields in Uzbekistan evidently. That old pair of BVD's at the back of your drawer? Yup, could be.



97 posts so far and as yet, NO mention of anchors. Tread softly gentlemen.

 

[Delfin]

And every peer reviewed scientific study of our atmosphere shows a very clear direct relation between the recent rise in global temperatures and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Sorry Brian, but this is an example of scientific reasoning at its worst, by implying you know which is the cause and which is the effect. Correlations are never assumed to imply causation, and that is what you are referring to. Is increased CO2 a cause of atmospheric warming, or is it an effect? Those who believe that it is a cause do so on the basis of computer models that are not based on observational data, but on programmatic inputs. The most important of which is the value for "climate sensitivity", which the IPCC says is how much warming you'll get in response to an increase in atmospheric CO2. In other words, the conclusion that warming is caused by CO2 is assumed, so is it surprising that models conclude it is a fact. A bit like my assuming you like asparagus, then asserting that there is a scientific consensus that you like asparagus.

Don't get me wrong - I certainly believe that if you increase CO2 it will have an effect on climate. How much of an effect, and whether that effect is good or bad, or even realistically preventable if bad is completely unknown.

Without getting into the weeds too much, if you refer to any IPCC report in the section on water vapor you'll find a pretty remarkable assumption that is key to the all important climate sensitivity value input to their computer ensembles. That assumption is that water vapor is uniform throughout the atmosphere. The reason they make this assumption is because we don't have the computing power to model water vapor at the thermosphere, upper troposphere, lower troposphere, etc. with sufficient granularity to determine what effect increased water vapor might have. It appears that the oceans are warming, so more water vapor should be formed from evaporation, as well as CO2 being outgassed. Is that CO2 increase the cause or an effect? Sure looks like an effect, doesn't it? When wind blows over a moist surface you get cooling. When cloud cover increases you get temperature moderation. What is the effect of all of this on a global scale? No one knows, so we should by all means continue to study the question, but spending trillions$ on making energy more expensive and thereby killing some number of poor people or shortening their lives on the basis we know the answer seems pretty irresponsible to me.

 

[sunchaser]

Greetings,
Mr. s. "...where did the Aral Sea go and why?" To irrigate the cotton fields in Uzbekistan evidently. That old pair of BVD's at the back of your drawer? Yup, could be. /QUOTE]

Now for the rest of the story.

Yes indeed, the Aral Sea was used to irrigate cotton crops. Until a century or so ago it was a flourishing fishing sea albeit shallow. As the shoreline quickly receded due to irrigation, the fishing went bust but not the dust storms caused by the exposure of the drying lake bed sediments .

These dust storms blew to the east, head waters for the Aral Sea, with some regularity. The headwaters to the east are in the Tien Shen mountain range in Kyrgyzstan. This range was covered with snow fields and glaciers. The Aral Sea dust landed on white coverings and began heating up the snow and ice and increased runoff.

The Russians loved it, more water for cotton for its masses and world sales. But then, the water flow was not sustainable and the Aral Sea virtually disappeared.

My points are two fold. First, the rapidly increasing world population loved the very cheap cotton. Damn the after effects. Secondly there is another elephant in the closet with similar issues. Imperial (an accident) Lake in California which now irrigates hundreds of thousands of acres in CA for feeding the ever increasing CA population. Dare I mention 3 Gorges in China?

So RT, water diversions for ever increasing world populations are blithely ignored by all governments as they pursue the one thing we need ever more of, clean water. With after effects galore. Now, why do we need more fresh water?

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. s. One need not travel as far as the Aral Sea to appreciate man's "intervention". The Salton Sea is an interesting case in itself. Cue the desert pupfish....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_pupfish


We visited the 3 Gorges Dam a few years back while on a Yangtze River cruise. Seems the engineers didn't plan for such rapid silting immediately upstream of the dam. Flow problems shortly after it's opening and I suspect ongoing.


I vaguely recall a story I read somewhere that China was planning on opening one nuclear electricity plant a year for the next 20 years to cut down on the use of coal.


Edit: Along similar lines, a complicating factor IMO is the ever increasing volume of waste. I foresee garbage dump "mining" in the future as resources become more scarce. Reduce, re-use, recycle is not just a catchy phrase.

 

[sunchaser]

Greetings,
Mr. s. One need not travel as far as the Aral Sea to appreciate man's "intervention". The Salton Sea is an interesting case in itself. Cue the desert pupfish....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_pupfish


We visited the 3 Gorges Dam a few years back while on a Yangtze River cruise. Seems the engineers didn't plan for such rapid silting immediately upstream of the dam. Flow problems shortly after it's opening and I suspect ongoing.


I vaguely recall a story I read somewhere that China was planning on opening one nuclear electricity plant a year for the next 20 years to cut down on the use of coal.

You are quite right, I typed Imperial Lake but should have typed Salton Sea. It is interesting that China ships us windmills and builds nuclear plants for their own use. Also, nuclear plants are efficient and large desalinators.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. s. Evidently, China has pledged over $360 billion to be spent on renewable energy, including wind and solar to further eliminate direct carbon use and will create 15+ million "green" jobs.



I pulled up several articles dealing with this BUT the political editorializing in them prevents me from posting links and rightly so. This has become an interesting thread so far that has not strayed into the old OTDE territory and I hope it won't.

 

[sunchaser]

RT
I too hope OTDE remains without over zealous rancor.

A few years ago China labeled nuclear power as renewable. Yes, for all intents and purposes it may well be but a listing of the new energy plant types being built will tell the tale. China's primary goal is to build new clean and efficient power plants and shut down old ones.

Also when the sun goes down and wind dies below operating minimums heating water for steam generation is required. This is called base load, and the base load demands in China are increasing very quickly.

In CA the NIMBY types can get away with saying no new power plants. CA just wires it over from AZ, TX, NV and UT who are quite happy to provide it. China does not have that luxury. So in China clean sheet solutions for future power needs are practiced. Quite remarkable really.

 

[Northern Spy]

China generates 993 gigawatts from coal now. There are another 259 gigawatts under construction in China. The US, number two in the world in electricity by coal, generates 246 gigawatts. Perspective.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. NS. Considering China's population is about 4.5X that of the US but generates 5X as much electricity using coal, I'd say that's not too far off.


China is a phenomenal place to visit. If my Mandarin was better I could see myself staying there for a short period of time (2-3 months max.) JUST for the food alone. The old saying...Nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.

 

[BruceK]

China generates 993 gigawatts from coal now. There are another 259 gigawatts under construction in China. The US, number two in the world in electricity by coal, generates 246 gigawatts. Perspective.

Australia supplies much of the coal China burns,that and iron ore are major exports to China. How about Canada?
But,try buying coal here, to mix with wood in a solid fuel heater, you can`t. Except for some a major hardware chain imports from Europe. Not unlike LPG(liquid petroleum gas), again we are a major exporter but look like becoming an importer because so much of it gets marked for export.
Anyway, we`re innocent with coal. We don`t burn it, we just sell it to someone else to burn.

 

[BrianSmith]

And herein lies an interesting problem Brian, claimers rise to their well entrenched positions very quickly for the strangest of reasons. Nowhere did I say that man is or is not causing a rise in CO2 atmospheric levels. In fact I noted dirty man caused air in several places. My geologic world 101 ice age short note provoked the typical alarmist response. I might as well have been talking about the snail darter and someone would have raised a stink.

Or maybe it was a comment about chasing grants and funds? Nothing the matter with that, a man's gotta eat.

So Brian, is there a peer reviewed study about the perils of an exploding world population? Yes there are. But many peer reviewed contrary studies saying more people are OK if certain (unattainable) assumptions are used. BTW, where did the Aral Sea go and why? So many issues.

Can you cite a single peer-reviewed study that says a growing population is sustainable, or is claiming that a lot of them exist a simply way to make it seem like peer review is meaningless? If an assumption is used in a studay that is clearly wrong, the peer review process would point that out, and negate the validity of the study. That, sir, is the whole point of peer review.

 

[BrianSmith]

Ah, well thank you for not associating a reality you disagree with to not believing in the holocaust. Just not believing we landed on the moon.

Regarding who debunked this bit of data fiddling by climate alarmists, Legates, et al, published a peer reviewed paper in Science and Education that used the commonly held falsehood you base your opinion on as a good example of "Agnotology", which is the study of culturally induced ignorance to shape opinions among people who don't have good information otherwise. In this case, the bit of misinformation used to shape opinions is

"that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus (on human induced global warming) exists".

Simply looking at the data in the "study" that first floated this nonsense, the proposition that most warming of the planet since 1950 was caused by humans was in fact, only believed by 64 of 11,944 papers, or .3% of respondents. Pro tip" .3% is not the same as 97%.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9647-9

Now, if the question is not whether humans are mostly responsible for impacts on climate, as the 97% consensus falsely asserts, but whether humans have an impact, then you would likely have nearly 100% agreement - the so called Butterfly Effect. Now ask the same group whether a warmer climate is bad or not, and you'd get another answer. Then ask whether there is anything we could do to impact current warming short of killing 3/4 of the people on the planet and going back to the culture of the 1500's and you would get another answer.

As I said, the idea that "scientific consensus" is a meaningful concept as applied to any topic is dubious, but in the case of AGW, it's a complete fraud.

Did you actually read that analysis that you linked to, sir? Because it's missing one very key item: a reference to the "study" that came up with that 0.3% figure. Go ahead - look again. Look in the references at the end of the article. Look all over it - it's not there. It cites the studies that it's trying to refute, but it doesn't give any reference to the study it uses to refute them. This "conclusion", is what I'm talking about - there is no way to look into it:

"However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."

So again, I ask you to provide us with a single example of peer reviewed study that concludes that we are not undergoing a uniquely rapid change in global climate, or that such change is not caused by human activity.

 

[sunchaser]

Smartini
You seem hung up on peer review. What is a peer? Often nothing more than like minded PhDs who (publish or perish) support each other and add to the credentials of those wanting to get into the job forever tenured status.

But my all in good humour poking aside, google "population control is a myth" and note the number of supposedly learned papers and presentations that pop up.

Kinda like hiring an expert witness to counter the Plaintiff's claims of scientific findings. Been there done that. On both sides no less.

 

[Delfin]

Smartini
You seem hung up on peer review. What is a peer? Often nothing more than like minded PhDs who (publish or perish) support each other and add to the credentials of those wanting to get into the job forever tenured status.

But my all in good humour poking aside, google "population control is a myth" and note the number of supposedly learned papers and presentations that pop up.

Kinda like hiring an expert witness to counter the Plaintiff's claims of scientific findings. Been there done that. On both sides no less.

You can choke a horse on the number of peer reviewed studies supporting the notion of "peak oil" occurring around 10 years ago. Oil supply has never stopped growing, and while we may well run out of oil if technological development ceases, since that isn't going to happen, peer reviewed conclusions on the subject have about the same merit as the Malthusian argument that Brian seems unaware was put to bed a long time ago.

I once had a paper rejected on the basis that the expert peer reviewer didn't accept that 1^0=1. The Nature paper recently withdrawn because it contained bonehead math errors went through peer review. Peer review and $3.00 will buy you a Starbucks.

 

[Delfin]

Did you actually read that analysis that you linked to, sir? Because it's missing one very key item: a reference to the "study" that came up with that 0.3% figure. Go ahead - look again. Look in the references at the end of the article. Look all over it - it's not there. It cites the studies that it's trying to refute, but it doesn't give any reference to the study it uses to refute them. This "conclusion", is what I'm talking about - there is no way to look into it:

"However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."

So again, I ask you to provide us with a single example of peer reviewed study that concludes that we are not undergoing a uniquely rapid change in global climate, or that such change is not caused by human activity.

How funny. You hold up peer review as a gold standard of Truth, then reject a peer reviewed study because you disagree with it, or don't understand what it says. You must be a climate scientist.

 

[Mkeller]

All I know is I have seen a lot of fabricated data in my career as a patent attorney. The worst academic researchers. There’s a reason why at least one major not for profit research institution mandates regular attendance at lectures on scientific fraud.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. s. Peer review IMO is a bit of what you mention BUT it is the only "filter" that prevents bad science from becoming accepted. Now, THAT opens up a completely different can of worms. Poly water comes immediately to mind...Pathological science.


Edit: Reviews/studies or opinions do nothing to change the empirical facts that species ARE going extinct, weather patterns/climate IS changing or man will not change unless forced to or fails to realize a profit from his current actions.

 

[Delfin]

All I know is I have seen a lot of fabricated data in my career as a patent attorney. The worst academic researchers. There’s a reason why at least one major not for profit research institution mandates regular attendance at lectures on scientific fraud.

My experience as well. Peer review is an informal, and anonymous process. You have no idea who the editor has selected to be the "expert reviewer", nor do you know their qualifications, nor their biases. If you submit a research paper concluding that human emissions of CO2 are killing the planet, and the editor is a staunch believer in that proposition, then the reviewers the editor selects will also be staunch believers. Presto, a peer reviewed article like the one in Nature, where dumb math errors are accepted as "science". If you submit a paper to a journal with an AGW fan as editor that questions whether computer models can simulate actual global climate, the paper will likely not pass peer review. This happens more with politically charged issues like climate, or gender. I can guarantee you that I could find peer reviewed journal articles concluding that one cannot determine gender from genitalia, even though a 5 year old could tell that is nonsensical.

 

[Mkeller]

My experience as well. Peer review is an informal, and anonymous process. You have no idea who the editor has selected to be the "expert reviewer", nor do you know their qualifications, nor their biases. If you submit a research paper concluding that human emissions of CO2 are killing the planet, and the editor is a staunch believer in that proposition, then the reviewers the editor selects will also be staunch believers. Presto, a peer reviewed article like the one in Nature, where dumb math errors are accepted as "science". If you submit a paper to a journal with an AGW fan as editor that questions whether computer models can simulate actual global climate, the paper will likely not pass peer review. This happens more with politically charged issues like climate, or gender. I can guarantee you that I could find peer reviewed journal articles concluding that one cannot determine gender from genitalia, even though a 5 year old could tell that is nonsensical.

And you’re, never getting a penny of government funding if your hypothesis is to disprove global warming.

 

[sunchaser]

Long before the GW debate, we had London SO2 laden fog killing people. Quite simply, burning peat was the culprit.

In NA, Los Angeles and Denver figured out how to curtail smog induced inversions - long ago.

In China today, the experts well understand where the big city smog is coming from and why. It is being dealt with but it will take decades to implement the changes already underway.

The list is endless of known air pollution locales and remedies. Most do not involve any more studies, IE tax funded grants and studies. The fixes are or will be underway eventually and quietly.

But with tens of thousands employed to study and argue global warming pros and cons, the fixes seem to always point to how bad the US is. Totally ignoring the burning of forests to clear land in Asia and South America, open dump burns and little pollution control in Mexico, cooking by fire wood in India, poor forest management in NA, overuse of brown (low BTU and high ash) coal world wide to name but a few.

Peer review on GW or AGW will do little to fix the issues in the previous paragraph. Simple solutions do not involve sufficient study and government money to gain attention. And no politician will get many votes by pushing for the simple things, especially in someone else's back yard.

 

[Delfin]

And you’re, never getting a penny of government funding if your hypothesis is to disprove global warming.

Quite true. And if there is no other warning signal that AGW theory is a political, not a scientific debate, it should be precisely that scenario, where skeptics are enthusiastically silenced by AGW proponents. In no other branch of science does this occur.

 

[Delfin]

Bit more fuel for the fire, which it sounds like we may need to keep warm...

Researchers at the Uni of Hong Kong looked at micro fossils to determine past ocean temps compared to fossils today and feel that there is a likelihood that the last little ice age experienced a breakdown in the Atlantic Mid Ocean Circulation patterns that keep the NE and Northern Europe a great deal warmer than they would otherwise be, and that we are starting to experience the same thing, so we may anticipate another mini ice age. It's breakdown would explain why Hans Brinker could skate the Iselmeer, Washington had to push ice chunks out of the way when crossing the Delaware and why you could walk to Staten Island on the ice in the 18th century.

This cooling as modeled to be caused by, you guessed it - global warming, which in turn is caused by you, yes you. That's because this change in circulation patterns is caused by melting ice in Greenland as a result of your SUV, decreasing the salinity of the Atlantic. Mind you, physical measures show that the Greenland ice sheet is growing, but never mind, the computer models indicate otherwise; this study was published in the peer reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters, so it is fact.

Trawlers will need to be more stoutly constructed to deal with the occasional ice hit due to the global cooling caused by global warming.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-ocean-circulation-north-atlantic-weakest.html

 

[Group9]

Exactly.



Sometimes I think this whole global warming thing is my fault.

I did all 51 things.