Wow this is how I remember university lectures back when I went. They were sober, somewhat complex, and thoughtful. So different from emotional, simplistic panic hype and activism that you too often see in colleges now. Hopefully education gets restored to this standard!
Excellent presentation. I agree with everything Dr Curry tables. her book should be prescribed reading for every single person in the entire World. Maybe that way, people would be far more careful about how they vote and we all get governments that are really interested in humanity and not their own self indulgent well being.
Dr Curry is a great summariser of all nformation and data which is freely available on the Internet. She is also a very accomplished scientist in her own right. Her conclusions about climate are spot on. It is a terrible shame that the main stream media ignore her and many other eminent scientists about the true nature of our climate. Please continue to keep up the good work. There will be a reckoning when the majority realise they have been scammed.
Curry's position is, "Well, it's not all that bad." Unfortunately, it is. The United States cattle herd has shrunk down to 1951 levels due directly to drought. It's only going to get worse from here and it's the fossil fuel companies fault. Actually, no. I'm as guilty as everyone else. I just purchased a 2023 F150 to haul equipment with. The problem? The batteries aren't here yet. In another 6 years or so, I'll probably be trading that truck in for an F150 EV.
@@Cspacecatpost up concrete irrefutable proof that co2 going from 0.03% pre industrial revolution to 0.04% currently is directly responsible for what you're claiming. Did you actually listen to anything Curry said?
@@Cspacecat The US cattle herd has shrunk because Bill Gates has bought all of the land in order to implement his policy of banning meat consumption. As for drought, is it as bad as the 1930's when thousands left their farms and trekked to Florida? Was that caused by CO2?
@@Cspacecat While we contribute, it's more like p1ssing in the Pacific and then saying we caused the tsunami. The reality is that the planet goes through a climate optimum roughtly every 110,000 years. We're a bit overdue. The last one was 125,000 years ago (more or less), called the Eemian. 110,000 years before that, La Bouchet. 110,000 years before that, Purfleet, and just over 100,000 years before that, the Hoxnian optimum. We know thanks to the Vostok ice cores. Most of the planet's history is of a cold world, and cold worlds don't encourage life. When our fossil fuels were laid down, CO2 was at 7,000 ppm. Today it's at 430 ppm, which is really rather low. When our primate ancestors turned up, it was at 1,000 ppm and that's the level we pump into greenhouses because it's the level plants evolved to eat. Just before we started warming, CO2 was at 180 ppm and plants were starting to die. At 160 ppm photosynthesis stops, so you can say goodbye to oxygen. At 150 ppm all plant life dies and the planet shortly after. We're getting better, and CO2 saturated at around 300 ppm, so the temps won't go up much more until we hit about 800 ppm (it's logarithmic, so it has to double), and you won't notice much. We've contributed something, but our less than 4% contribution to the 0;.04% that is atmsopheric CO2 (over 96% is entirely natural) isn't driving this. It's entirely natural forces. Now calm down, chill out a bit, and focus on mitigation and finding cheap, reliable energy alternatives, because after we hit optimum the temperature will drop to -6 to -8 for the planet, and if we've not got cheap energy that doesn't require fossil fuels (both wind and solar require coal) and isn't affected by subzero temperatures and 8 foot deep snow drifts, a lot of people, animals and everything else will die. We need REAL answers, not this neo-Marxist BS.
@@socratesrocks1513 The Eemian interglacial temperature maximum was about 125,000 years ago. We reached the Holocene interglacial maximum about 7,000 years ago. "Today it's at 430 ppm, which is really rather low." The normal CO2 concentrations for the last several million years have been 180 ppm during glacial periods and 280 ppm for interglacial periods. "We've contributed something, but our less than 4% contribution to the 0;.04% that is atmsopheric CO2 (over 96% is entirely natural) isn't driving this. It's an entirely natural force. " You've done a rather good job of cherry-picking. You do realize all this information is readily available on Wikipedia? The other thing you didn't know is I'm an engineer whose uncle was a physicist. Due to my uncle, I started college at 14. In the 1850s, Eunice Foote, an amateur scientist and activist for women's rights, and John Tyndall set the foundation for our modern understanding of the greenhouse effect. The fossil fuel industry had a clear understanding of the effect of its byproducts back in the 1940s. They started building their oil rigs to compensate for sea level rise back in the 1950s. My uncle worked for the oil industry. I understood the effects of greenhouse gases back in the 1960s. The human species has been modifying the climate for the last 10,000 years by cutting trees which blocked the uptake of CO2, and started farming which released CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere. This is what prevented the climate from quickly cooling off which normally occurs after all interglacial maximums. Instead, we've had an extremely stable climate during this time, allowing our civilization to prosper. So, no. There's nothing natural about any of this. There will be a direct ratio of CO2 concentrations to temperature until we hit a tipping point and then temperatures will accelerate.
An efficient, pragmatic approach to a problem that exists. Folks who live in tornado alley do so for several reasons, land cost, and fertile soil only part of the draw. We know that springtime brings rain and the warm moist air flowing north out of the Gulf that often is confronted by a cold mass of air coming south from the snow fields and result in tornados. We dig basements, and storm cellars to provide a secure spot to save what we consider most precious to us. We don't stand outside and protest the storm or throw handfuls of money at it. I am happy that scientists such as Judith Curry are willing to state the obvious to the religious fanatics on the climate doom side. I wish it would do some good.
Do you wish to do some good? You can purchase a hybrid plug-in as your main vehicle to spare your wallet. Forget the debate. You take care of yourself.
@@Cspacecat Oh? You're going to give us the money to do that, because those of us trying to pay the rent, feed ourselves and generally live on lesss than £25k a year cannot AFFORD such luxuries. That's for rich elites as their second or third car. For those of us just trying to get by, a ten or 15 year old ICE that still works is as good as it gets. Now recognise that we've not all got rich mummies and daddies to pay for our arrogance. Some of us have to work for a living.
@@Cspacecat I no longer drive. It's due to medical reasons. I just think the kids on the "fight climate change to the last dollar in the budget" train are basically uninformed King Cnut emulators and need to figure out what is needed to survive if their worse case scenario happens. There are livable solutions. If not, they have nothing to worry about. Right?
@@fkb247 The Earth is warming, humans have caused it, the Earth continues to warm, humans are doing nothing to stop the warming, the ultimate end point may be BILLIONS of humans DYING. Judy knows this and says the opposite. That makes her a LIAR. And you and Judy Curry don't give a damn or are just too fucking lazy to care.
@@fkb247 You a bot? (to ask such a stupid bot question) but here goes! Judy does NOT talk about the CAUSES of climate changing. She talks nothing but the WEATHER. She KNOWS this YOU can't recognize it. She is smart enough to know this. That makes her a LIAR. Climate change is about ONE thing, it ain't complicated. What is the effect of ADDING 2,400 GIGATONS of co2 to our atmosphere in only 250 years? That's IT.
:@@fkb247 Sigh, why? You either are stupid or smart, which? Take for instance @9:00. Nice little PowerPoint on the right showing "ocean" "solar" "volcanoes" "land use" "tidal effects" and YOU don't even notice ALL of these are the fucking WEATHER. Judy may even believe it, she's not stupid just has dementia. Those aren't the fucking manmade climate change and certainly NOT "climate" And YOU too dumb to notice.
My body temperature can vary by 2 degrees in a few hours and that is normal, yet the UN is worried about average global temperature change of 1.5 degrees 25 years from today. That is undeniable stupidity.
That extra degree determines whether large portions of the human population will be able to grow crops on marginal land. It's ok though. The price of food will increase 50% over the next 50 years or so and the human population will drop 2 billion in population. Technology is going to advance at a certain rate. The damage is in the works regardless of what you or I believe.
@@Cspacecat It certainly will if we get rid of fossil fuels and thus have no fertilisers, no diesel to bring in the crops, no reliable energy production for greenhouses, and we don't make an effort to extend and develop desalination. But hey, let's wreck art and say we're doing it 'for the planet' because that gets people on our side! (morons!)
@@Cspacecat The amount of food grown in the world has steadily, and dramatically, increased (much faster than population) for many decades on a negligible increase in planted area. There is no indication that will change. Our World in Data has an excellent chart showing all three ( area, output, population) together. There is significantly much more food available now that at any point in recorded history. By the way, CO2 is plant food, not pollution. Check the chemical equation for photosynthesis. There is an article titled “Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds” on the NASA website to back that up. It also says climate change is responsible for 8% of the INCREASED greening of the earth. Stop getting propaganda from MSM hysterical headlines and check actual facts.
the difference between cool and warm summers is around 5C without people noticing and they're talking about 1.5 or 2.4C which is nothing.... warm climate is beneficial
SEARCH FOR: "Semantic Scholar Glacier and lake-level variations in west-central Europe over the last 3500 years". During Roman times there were virtually no glaciers in the Alps, while in 1859/60 they reached their maximum size of the past 3500 years thanks to the Little Ice Age.
@@petewright4640 What it actually tells us is that all those climate fluctuations before thermometer measurements started in the 19th century had absolutely nothing to do with the trace gas CO2.
@@petewright4640 What that tells you is that NATURAL climate change happens, and people prosper more when the climate is milder, as it is getting now. Low temperatures are increasing, NOT high temperatures. Also, severe weather is NOT increasing, contrary to MSM hysterical headlines.
The proposition in Dr Currys book and summarised in this presentation is obviously the way to go. Which rational person could possibly disagree? Unfortunately, climate change and net zero has been completely hijacked both politically and financially, such that there are significant vested interests pushing the unscientific, un-risk-assessed, emotive approach that facts and rationality will, I fear, not be able to overcome. The alarmism will only end when ordinary people revolt by refusing to comply with current climate policies, where they can, and when climate sensitivity is proven to be much lower than currently IPCC assumed, and its clear the average global temperature shows no correlation with or causation by co2.
The only issue I have with the video speaker is that the person talking is a provable imbecile simply because she stated "If Antarctica starts to lose ice it will be because of volcanoes" and only an actual imbecile could genuinely have that thought in their "brain".Apart from that slight wart it might be all great for all I know.
Earth's climate, beyond human understanding due to it's complexity and extraordinary length climate cycles which are much longer than we can possibly know. Money channels are the future of channelling wealth into political groups, of which the UN, IPCC, NOAA and governments have become addicted to. When you look very closely at the money movement, you can see that the climate is the least of their concerns, it's all about the money and securing more and more funding.
@petewright4640 geological history says that's not apt to happen. Indeed, if we continue in the pattern of the last million years or so, we're headed for iceball earth.
Thousands of climate scientists disagree with you. And their opinion is based on scientific data supported facts. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing at an alarming rate. Unfortunately, ignorance of science doesn’t make you invincible to the effects.
This seems like a good summary of her book, which contains thousands of references. It's a great resource, although a bit of a dry read. I would, however, recommend it to anyone who is seriously interested in this topic.
Judy Curry's book is CRAP. "thousands of references" yes, references to OPINIONS and not DATA or the PHYSICS or the MATH. Curry and her "book" are both HORSESHIT. A check in the box for climate gate conspiracy.
Knowledge of what is not known, is also knowledge. An attitude that motivates a quest for better understanding and certainty about what is, and what to do. Thank you for your brave heart Dr. Curry.
Yep. She makes the mistake common among academics of too many long words and too many generalisations. A few real world examples bring such talks down to earth.
@@sirrathersplendid4825 What like certain liars who ignore the evidence in, say, tree rings to 'hide the decline' and sell an agenda? That kind of 'real world example' you mean?
Excellent concise summary of the real state of the discussion. The principle driver of all the climate nonsense is political rather than proper science, but there is seemingly no shortage of 'gun for hire' scientists willing to support the politics rather than the science.
A little more concentration on the monetization of carbon via taxation, carbon credit trading and associated derivatives might have been helpful. The greed, lust for power and the depopulation aspects are, in my opinion, the primary drivers behind climate alarmism and associated scientific and political skulduggery. This would include not only the 'adjusting' of raw data to match poorly executed models (instead of the proper scientific method of changing the hypothesis when it is confounded by data), and the blatant stifling of any other research or discussion by choking off of grants and vilification of any scientist having the temerity to disagree with the politicised narrative. Prof Curry being an excellent case in point. Hats off to her and the many others now speaking out despite the evil machinations of assorted politicians, maniacal billionaires, bought and paid for 'scientists' and the likewise mainstream media hacks who have now successfully managed to propel themselves to the very bottom of the 'least trustworthy people' listings (previously held by lawyers, realtors and corrupt politicians). All crowing on and shamelessly virtue signalling they are 'saving the planet' whilst stuffing their pockets with ill gotten booty and attempting to install global totalitarianism asap. Show me the money and I'll show you the incentive as someone has quipped. In my world the jails would be overflowing with lot of them ...
I f governments are rushing change to renewables, could it be because the cost of fossil fuels are creating high inflation on goods and services world wide, also it seems people procrastinate and tend to be reluctant to change so motivation must be prompted and while there is discrepancy amongst scientists, about the planet warming fossil fuels do have detrimental consequences on humans and animals as well as the environment and when disasters occurr such as Milford Sound Canada, economic consequences as well
Just going to watch it burn. Grab the popcorn, get the kids inside, let's take a magical ride to a fantasy world where locals make decisions about their future. WOW! #IOWA
planet used to be much warmer, CO2 used to be around 2000 ppm and life on earth flourished in such climate... plants grow better in higher CO2 concentrations, periods of warm climate were periods of prosperity and increased food production...
When individuals or groups are in pain, their cognitive resources might be more directed towards stopping the pain rather than engaging in thorough, balanced decision-making. This leads to simplistic solutions that seem to address the pain but fail to tackle the underlying issues comprehensively. The challenge, therefore, lies in exposing how truth is created. Reducing pain is an extremely deceptive mechanism as it rewards becoming instantly calm, even as we speak.
During the Great Leap Forward in China under Mao Zedong's leadership from 1958 to 1962, there were numerous unrealistic agricultural experiments and policies. One such experiment was based on the concept of "close planting," where it was believed that planting crops like wheat very close together would lead to massively increased yields. The idea was that the crops would support each other, allowing them to grow denser and supposedly even enabling a person to walk on top of the densely packed plants. However, this method, along with other misguided agricultural innovations of the time, led to widespread crop failure and was one of the factors contributing to a devastating famine.
And as humanity plunges off the avoidable cliff people like you will still be saying "it's just natural cycles but funny how the climate alarmists were right but for the wrong reasons".
Dark matter phase transitions could be a primary climate driver. If the solar system passes through an area of higher liquid dark matter content the planets cores would all receive more heat due to increased phase transitions thus heating the earth from the inside out. This could be controlled comparatively cheaply. Heating of the planet from the inside out would result in : Increased ground temperatures Increased sea temperatures Increased nighttime temperatures Increased seismic activity Increased earthquakes We are currently passing through the S1 dark Matter stream which, as it is going the opposite direction around the galaxy was described as a dark matter hurricane. June-July 2020 Earth Mercury Venus Mars Jupiter Saturn conjunctions July 2020 Siberian heatwave and Antarctica temperature spike Jan 9 2022 Venus Earth conjunction March 18 2022 Concordia Station spiked 39 C degrees due to unusual air patterns near Australia North Pole regions hit 30C above normal Venus atmospheric temperatures from 2009-2017 also were higher after conjunctions NASA issued a climate change warning for Mars after Mariner 9 Neptune has been heating up since 2018
@@bobbya51 Tony is a lot more than a debunker. I cannot remember how many years I have followed him. I do remember him being banned from WUWT which, at the time, I thought was disgusting
Different speeches, different focus. There are some excellent videos explaining things like the role of CO2, how human influences compare to natural influences, etc., and this speech complements those very well.
Yes adaptation! So all we have to do is make sure, by 2060, that ever person in the world who lives in the tropics, has access to air conditioning. So, on the days that it’s too hot, they can go inside and turn the air conditioning on, so they don’t die of heat stroke. Brilliant !!
Large areas of the world do that anyway, the climate as always changed and always will and man has always adapted, cold areas where you can't live without heating will no longer need to use so much energy, every 21,000 years the Sahara Desert greens over nothing man does will change that.
In this instance, the adaptation needs to be in the direction of the generation of more power from all fossil fuels as humans are a tropical species and much more deaths are due to cold than heat. The periodic cooling has already commenced, prolonged minimal sunspot activity with large planet alignment, and will last until 2035+. In the meantime, we should build numerous modern nuclear fission generators in geologically and politically stable lands all over the earth for the time when the coal, oil and gas deposits become unworkable.
Africa population 1950: 250M Africa population 2024: 1.4B Tell me again about the climate catastrophe in the 3rd world, on the hottest continent on earth! I await your response.
The ability to adapt is a fundamental strength of _Homo sapiens._ But you think it will be based on current comfort levels. Are you sure you understand this simple concept?
And this is not caused by the approach of the coming galactic current sheet? I think you are all a bit off the mark, there are recent changes in all of our solar system planets, look around.
The electric universe, while might agree that electro static forces and the z-pinch effects are compelling in explaining the the large structure of the universe and enabling small objects to stick together. Cosmically the Milankovitch cycles and solar radiation variability are way more significant in driving climate.
@@Meathead-10810 Idk... I heard an interesting podcast where the interviewee made the case for Barnard's star as the sun's companion on about a 24,000 year orbit IIRC. I'm not well enough educated in such matters to make a judgment, but it seemed plausible.
No kids she's gay that's why she's doing these lying lectures, because of her non-inclusion treatment during her "career." So, she doesn't give a damn. All clear? All clear now about her "science?"
Месяц назад
Thank you, Dr Curry, but may I ask who were the persons in your audience at this lecture? Are any of them likely to be able to influence future policy-making decisions? I fully agree with your overall message, but forgive me for saying that your delivery was less than dynamic, which is a shame, because this is a message that needs to be heard.
Again with this false claim - if you're going to wheel it out again, at least provide some evidence. Also acknowledge that, in this speech, she is referencing the IPCC's reports and looking at the political choices - she isn't arguing about climate science. So some climate scientists might disagree with her political analysis, but did she include any scientific opinions that they would disagree with?
@@loz6441@loz6441 I'm not referring to the politics, that all opinion. It's the science that she misrepresents. All climate scientists, except the odd outliers like Curry, think current warming is caused by human activity, that its dangerous and that's it's urgent to cease it's causes for the wellbeing of humanity. There is debate about how much, how fast and how bad - 2C or 4C, 1m of sea level rise by end of century or 3m, 100 million dead or 1 billion etc. BTW the 97% figure was an old study. It's more like 99.97 but it depends on how the questions are asked and wether those asked are actually climate scientists.
@@wheel-man5319Curry says almost nothing about the science. It's all conjecture about the politics. "The science demands that we reduce CO2 emissions to prevent bad weather". So what about sea level rise, ocean acidification and unsurvivable heat waves. If the AMOC (aka the Gulf Stream) shuts down (this is looking increasingly likely), I wouldn't call that "bad weather".
I did not hear any remarks about "tipping points" . Paul Beckwith and Hanson both emphasize that an ice free arctic will happen within 20 years. This is guaranteed to happen based on the well documented trends of the reducing area of the summer minimum of arctic ice cover. The summer ice cover is also measurably thinning. This means that the ice cover will suddenly disappear causing a sudden and drastic increase in the amount of heat being absorbed into the arctic ocean. Furthermore scientists that study permafrost are concerned that the rapid rise in temperature could cause a sudden and rapid melting of permafrost causing a "methane burp". Methane is short lived (30 years) but has 80 times the warming impact of CO2 per unit. The methane burp could add significantly to global warming within a year after "the burp". These risks are the elephant in the room that Curry does NOT talk about. Why not? Serious climate scientist such as Beckwith and Hanson put these risks at the top of the list. Curry needs to explicitly talk about these risk to be fully credible.
@@mrunning10 The future disappearance of the arctic ice sheet is NOT weather, nor is a future methane burp. Curry needs to explicitly talk about these risk to be fully credible.
@@xqt39a Back to some school please, next time let it not be Hair Styling 101. The future disappearance of the arctic ice sheet is a SINGLE event. A WEATHER event. The sequence of events over TIME of the ice sheet melting, disappearing, season to season is CLIMATE CHANGE. The release of methane occurring now is a WEATHER event, over many seasons is CLIMATE CHANGE. A TREND is climate change, an EVENT like the current arctic ice sheet coverage is the WEATHER. What's your fucking POINT anyway?
@xqt39a It isn't actually "suddenly" but it will be at a geometrically-increasing rate (what you'all call "exponential" because you've had no schooling in mathematics). It'll happen at an increasing rate rather than a fixed rate though, for certain.
@@grindupBaker what is the difference between geometric and exponential and linear and parabolic ? By suddenly, I mean to imply faster than of these.. these are the tipping points that scare some climate scientists and should not be ignored by the likes of Curry with no explanation!
So this is what becomes of a person that washed out of climate research decades ago, and went into administration when she couldn't reconcile her scientific findings with her strong political beliefs - now a full time political activist, on behalf of fossil fuels investors.
Spot ON! The fossil fuel narrative carried on by a pre-dementia Judy Curry. Checks the conspiracy idiocy boxes for the stupid and just un-educated morons out there.
That is not true. Despite the fact that at the time she agreed with Michael Mann, he wanted her out. He falsely claimed that she slept her way to the top which was an absolute lie. He repeated this lie to NASA and anyone else that would ruin her career. She left the university and had to make a living in the private sector. Get your facts right.
Hooray. Someone who isn't taken in by the propaganda of this woman. This blog is a real desert for the likes of you and me. It's scary how many people believe this kind of stuff.
@@woodrow60 You can't refute a word I said about her or this: She often lies about what expertise and consensus are, because her purpose is to convince folk that there is no consensus and that scientific expertise is an excuse for corruption. Such is the realty with her political agenda. She needs you to think that the research scientists are the ones who are political, not the fossil fuels interests that pay the salary of the "skeptics." She is also known for lying about Oreskes, Conway, Flannery, and Schneider because those authors identify the conflicts of interest that drive the "skeptic" attacks on mainstream climate science. It’s a fact that the short term profits of the fossil fuel industry are at risk if the findings from climate science are used to take any action to combat climate change. At least she doesn’t dismiss anthropogenic global warming out of hand.
@@andrewhotston983 I lived in Adelaide -- South Australia in the late 1970's, the mid day temp on this particular day was 46 deg C. at midnight only 12 hours later it had droped to + 6 deg C.As you say Andrew, always been unstable, 40 deg C. in only 12 hours.
Dr, Curry is an exellent scientist, no question. And her book is proof for that. But, she is not a good speaker. How can someone in front of a live audience give a speach by reading word for word from a scrip? Looking up only for fractions of a second. And no Q & A at the end. I'm disappointed.
Dr Curry, Three out of Ten. You Make Some Good Points, Hence My Three Score. But You Continue a Broader Phenomenon of Dysfunctional Communication, Including Dysfunctional Science Speak, Dysfunctional Management Speak. This Includes Dilemmas with Some of Your Statements or Perceptions. Although You Highlight Dilemmas without Conclusions. Further, Yes it is Very Very Unwise to Underestimate a Number of Very Powerful or Very Wealthy Groups. Groups such as :- The Politicians/Governments. The Capitalists. The Scientists. The Economists. The World's Military. Further Again, Dr Curry You May be Caught by the Flat Management/Leadership Structures that have been Widespread for Decades Now. So Dr Curry, A Difficult Speech.
@@loz6441 Code 6441, I Would Improve the Speech in a Number of Ways because I am Conscious of what is going on around Me. Including Conscious of Repetition and Dysfunction. Including Conscious of the Need for Genuine Progress and the Huge Number of Excuses. Factually I was Complaining about the Dysfunctionality Problem 25 Years ago. Etc, Etc. So Yes Code 6441, If it was My Speech it Would be Different.
@@loz6441 Code 6441, I Attempted to Reply to Your Suggestion of Improving Dr Curry's Speech. But the Establishment Removed My Reply to You. So Much for Free Speech. So Much for the Public Arena. So Much for an Exchange of Opinions and Facts.
@@anthonymorris5084- disinformation about what we know through science about the climate pollution from fossil fuels has confused you. This garbage is dangerous and is delaying addressing a serious pollution problem.
@@johngage5391 This is nothing less than the classic "my scientists are all correct and your scientists are all wrong so go away". Your tactic is very familiar, shut down all dissent because you have no argument. Shutting down dissent is at the foundation of every single cult in existence and tells us everything we need to know about climate zealotry. CO2 is not "pollution" and calling it that proves you just have an agenda.
Climate worship is just one denomination of the larger religion of Environmentalism. Socialism and Christianity have failed, so people have turned to worshiping the environment to give themselves that feeling of worth, of belonging and that feeling of being morally right. Like all religion, it requires no effort, you just declare yourself in. All the difficult questions you leave to the gurus - the “experts”. The only way to counter their doctrine is with the truth, but even that won’t convince the “faithful”.
