Last week, I highlighted a comment over at WUWT that disappeared. It was from NeilT. Well, it seems Neil is having trouble with moderators over there again so has made his comment here for posterity. It is in relation to Anthony’s response to the Hitler video doing the rounds and that I reposted yesterday. Here is Neil’s comment.
Anthony I must admit that I’m sorry that this video was created. Those who try to communicate climate science and counteract the opinions and data that originates on this site can often go off the rails thinking they have made a strong point.
I’m not sorry because it personally slurs you, I assume that you can take it as well as give it and you are not short of handing it out as your recent posts have proven.
What I am very sorry about is that this gives you an “out”. It allows you to post most amiable and reasonable posts about how the frenetic slavering zombies of the fraternity of people who believe in climate change have wronged you.
Well probably they have. Today.
However the reality is that those dying in the horn of Africa are not dying because of you. They are dying because of 200 years of excess by people who didn’t know any better. Burning everything they could get their hands on, creating a throwaway society which burns and makes more than any society on the planet. In fact this society probably makes, consumes and discards, more in one year than the Romans did in 1,000 years. Hardly something to be proud of.
What is also reality is that people will begin to start dying in increasing numbers around the 2060’s to the 2100’s. The deaths of these people will certainly be attributed to the delay in action on our emissions. So, in a way, you could say that those who, today, create falsehoods and false data to delay urgently needed action on emissions, are intrinsically responsible for the deaths of these people. I’m not talking the numbers Hitler killed. Or the numbers killed by the communist lunatics. I’m talking “real” numbers. 1,2, or even more Billion people. Probably more as there is likely to be 8 or 9 billion people on the planet by then, more than half living mainly in starvation conditions.
Does this make you a monster like Mao or Hitler or Stalin? Certainly not. They deliberately ordered the murders of these people knowing what they were doing. You and almost everyone else on here actually thinks this will not happen.
Does it really matter in the long run if you are a “real” monster if the consequences of your actions are monstrous?
Fortunately for you Anthony, you will die knowing you were right. Therefore you will not have to face the consequences of your actions. Unfortunately your great grandchildren will be killed by the environment knowing you were wrong. Could I put you in Cryosleep for 90 years and wake you up in 2102 I would. Because I would dearly love you to see the end result of your beliefs (for beliefs they are), then for you to take the consequences for your beliefs and actions.
Sadly I will not get what I wish and my great grandchildren will pay the price of your beliefs.
You can probably understand that I, as a parent and grandfather, am not very happy about that.
Well said Neil.
2060′s to 2100′s??? After several years obsessing about the matter, it often seems better not to disturb people’s composure (including my own). But the writer seems to overlook the risks of civilization collapse that exist _now_ from the unwholesome mix of peaking energy supplies, a financial system that requires growth to avoid collapse, the tightly geared just-in-time complexity of the global industrial system,, and the incentives to delusion and ignorance regarding these matters that exist at every level of society and in every subculture. David Korowicz’s recent report for Feasta – “Trade Off: Financial system supply-chain cross contagion – a study in global systemic collapse” – is a good corrective.
He outlines a scenario where at any moment a single factor like the defaulting of Spain could trigger a complete collapse and global catastrophe in only 3 weeks is completely over the top and “alarmist”. Putting forward the lowest probability outcome as the most likely is exactly the same thing deniers do and for my money puts them in the same boat.
I don’t know on what rational basis you assign the scenario “lowest probability” – say, compared to the scenario in which we just gather the political will to cap emissions and switch to “clean energy” and everything goes on much as before (economic growth, careers in scientific research, etc., etc.,) – this conviction put forth with particular emotion when “answering” the “alarmism” of the “deniers.” I sure hope you are right, of course, But it bears pointing out that the factors I mentioned – and on which Korowicz based his analysis – are arguably real and barely understood at this time by either the climate changers or the deniers – they desperately need to be brought into the discussion.
Sometimes an alarm needs to be sounded.
I recommend spending some time perusing the archival Global Public Media site for some personal consciousness raising (it’s been a while for me personally, but interviews with Richard Heinberg, Andrew McNamara (Queensland Parliamentarian), Roscoe Bartlett, and David Goodstein stand out in my memory as notable). See also Heinberg’s “Bridging Peak Oil and Climate Change Activism” and “Searching for a Miracle” and Barry Lynn’s _End of the Line_ (2005) on the risks of today’s “tightly geared” system of industry.
Steve,
If we look throughout history, the human race tends to pull together through adversity. We’ve survived wars which should have destroyed us and we will do it again. The interconnected state that we have today is only a fabrication which works to serve a goal. But it is not the ONLY society we can have; just one.
Bad is bad enough. By 2060, on the current emissions path, it doesn’t matter how much we pull together, 80% of our population is not going to make it before we finally get things back under control.
Isn’t that as bad as it gets?
I am a proponent of the whole “disaster groupie” scenario where people will only be motivated by immediate personal or family harm. However when it doesn’t happen and climate change is far too slow moving for that, they will become increasingly innured to the reality of the situation.
Painting a picture of disaster which is for future generations, but rapidly moving towards the end of this generations life, should be enough.
Why sensationalise? We’re not the press. We have more sense.
Inspired by NeilT, I have posted a very reasonable comment in response to AWs whinging (a phrase he likes to use himself) about being compared to Hitler. I even avoided using the D-word (but only just). Therefore, it will be interesting to see if this appears but, just in case it does not, I append it here:
With the greatest of respect, Anthony, you invited this sort of parody by suggesting, in another recent post, that those who accept the scientific evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of the climate disruption we are now witnessing actually want people to die from preventable diseases like malaria.
I really do think it is well past the time that you accepted that widespread malnutrition, starvation and premature death are not the result of money being diverted to prevent a problem you say does not exist (or can’t be fixed). These phenomena are the result of too many people living in environments that cannot support them; and of too many people burning too many fossil fuels.
Far from running out, our problem is that we now have too much fossil fuel left to burn; and too many people seem far too willing to dispute that burning them is the primary cause of the change now becoming obvious.
AW posted a reply (as a moderator):
REPLY: As usual Martin, your thinking suffers from a lack of understanding combined with spoon fed talking points. I doubt we’ll ever agree on anything, much less this, and I’ve learned that trying to tell you anything is nothing but a time sink. So I’m not going to bother to comment further as I have more productive things to do with my time than worry about your misguided opinion. – Anthony
This then, as usual is a both an unfalsifiable argument and reality inversion. Both my comment and his response are opinion stated as fact – but only one of us is at odds with the vast majority of genuine experts in the field of climate science.
I’m glad you got a reply. I’ve found the best way to deal with WUWT is not to get angry and to reason my words so that their illogic comes to the fore. It’s not too difficult to point out the basic schizophrenic nature of the site.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Neil. Some of what I would like to say is reflected in my previous reply to uknowispeaksense. I don’t particularly want to be pigeonholed as “sensationalizing.” I see the problem as one of recognizing rather than sensationalizing – recognizing the facts of our extreme dependency on exhaustible fossil fuels and what they mean for the possibility of continuing life as we know it. Predicting the details of the collapse exactly right is not the point, though I think that the realistic time frame will be in the decades before 2060. (Scenarios assuming that current trends in energy consumption can be extrapolated to the future, absent any analysis of energy production facts, are _not_ realistic in my opinion.) In any case, the answer in either case is that we as a civilization must rapidly take steps to _reduce our dependency_ on fossil fuels.
Hi Steven,
Thanks for elaborating on your post. Let me give you my thoughts on the matter.
Back in 1996, when I bought my house in Scotland, eveyone laughed when I pulled out my GPS on the site and checked how high it was from sea level and also the way the water drained around the site, local rivers etc.
When I did the same in France in 2002 people were amused but more willing to listen.
When nearly 15,000 people died unexpectedly in the massive heatewave in France in 2003 and people suffered all over Europe, amusement was tempered a bit more. Again in 2006 when northern Scotland broke records with 36C temperatures and I suffered all summer long in Stockholm with over 36C temperatures. Again in 2010 with the massive heatwave and fires in Russia, the “weather out of control” in the US in 2011 and the current happenings in the US and the Arctic. It all builds a picture of acceptance.
After the Arctic change in 2007, which was trumpeted in the press as the Arctic being turned into an ice island as it lost contact with both coasts for the first time in recorded human history, more people came to the viewpoint that things were happening and it was not going “as expected”.
However we are still to close to the IPCC AR4 which was politically massaged to explicity remove the very real and strong concerns of the climate scientists and even that was viewed as being “alarmist”. Even more so the revision after the Arctic melt back that year.
Yes I believe that we will begin to see the very real impact of climate change around the late 20′s (well actually we’re seeing it today, but I mean globally, all at once) and will ramp up pretty rapidly after that. I’ll still be around (if the cardiologists get their finger out) and we’ll still have the same old BS from WUWT. However more and more people will begin to understand that one side is lying to them and one side is giving them a soft soap picture.
However much I believe that, I can only word my replies, to those who don’t want to hear, in terms of the impact to the next generation. Very few people care to doubt that one and as it has no political ramifications to the current crop of politicians, they don’t block it.
It is much more credible to say, “The evidence points to our species being endangered from 2100 and our grandchildren will have to face this and fix it”, then to build on that statement and say “Because you took no action this is beginning to escalate and now we are going to see the impact to our children”…. And so on.
Trying to fix change culture by pouring more and more dire information onto people is not the way to go, especially as weather and solar output will vary the annual experience. Set a reasonable picture they can get a handle on and then work on it. Make them responsible. Make them understand. Make them accept. Once acceptance has happened, we can really move.
If I paint a picture of arctic driven methan clathrate explosion in the warming, driving changes in the north atlantic drift, which will lock even more heat in the tropics, as there is no longer enough cool in the arctic to transport that heat away, all picking up from 2015 when the Arctic goes ice free in Summer and escalates each year; I would be ridiclued and, worst, the scientists would not back me on it as they cannot model changes that fast and many of them don’t believe it will happen before 2100.
It many be true, all too true. But all that would happen is that I rewind myself to 1996 with everyone laughing at me.
I’m waiting for the inevitable penny to drop that we will require 2 or 3 times the energy we currently use today to transition ourselves off fossil fuels. All of that energy being renewable. When that one finally breaks through, expect some fireworks.
It still does not change the way the message has to be delivered until senior politicians stop hosting Monckton and people like Watts are finally uncovered.
Thanks for your earlier reply, Neil. Like you, I just wish I could make AW see sense. The trouble is how? All sorts of words are not allowed on WUWT; but it is very difficult to avoid using them. I have given up on Monckton and I think I will have to give up on Watts because they both seem entirely incapable of being reasonable (i.e. if you try to reason with them they choose to be insulted by the suggestion that they have been hitherto unreasonable).
Wow….that’s all I can say, Neil. As a geologist and a volunteer at SkS, I’ve not seen much better, or brief, comments that were so dead-on.
NeilT ” I would be ridiclued and, worst, the scientists would not back me on it as they cannot model changes that fast and many of them don’t believe it will happen before 2100″
Some of the model runs are now predicting the near collapse Arctic ice free summer much earlier Neil T, there is now backing for that to occur,
Gavin at RC has stated just that
Gavin at RC
:” There are two issues here: a purely factual one related to whether the CMIP5 models show a spread of declines that encompass the observed decline – and in agreement with my statement above – they do.”
John,
Whilst the models are now showing the breakdown of the ice much earlier, the rest of the picture is simple linear logic which might not happen. You could not expect scientits to put their reputation on the line, regardless of whether this is the patching together of two or three lines of linear research or not. It makies an integrated picture but could not be verified scientifically at the stage we are at with our understanding.
Too little is known about how the Actic sea will warm and how clathrates may defrost. Although there is research out there which is showing more warmer water staying on the continental shelves, where the clathrates are most abundant.
So I try to back what is accepted and present a picture for action which can be built upon.
might like to read Neilt, apologies if you already have ,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/06/methane-game-upgrade/
NP John, I read that when it came out.
For earth based methane this is proably true. However for clathrates on the 50m continental shelf, it probably isn’t. In the end it’s a waiting game in which our information get’s better, decade by decade as we observe the real impact and categorise it against better known activity.
As I see it the arctic sea is the game changer and the Arctic sea just changed. Again.
First, let me congratulate you guys on the civility and polite exchanging of ideas. While there are some minor differences of opinion, I reckon we are all pretty much on the same page.
Steven, I was looking for a way to express my opinion on the “lowest probability” of economic collapse and I will admit I am nowhere near as well read on the subject as you are and so may be speaking from a point of ignorance but I just get the impression that the author of the piece you originally outlined was coming from a very dry position which failed to take into account human nature and the fact that we are likely to band together in some sense. Being an ecologist myself, I am dubious about his ability to incorporate ecological modelling into his argument as he claims. There is this misconception that ecology is an easy scientific discipline to grasp but in many ways it is far more difficult than say physics, or chemistry because animals and plants often respond to stimuli in surprising and unexpected ways and they will do that more often than not. Humans too. But all that aside, the point I wanted to make was actually made be Neil in his response to you and that is one of communication. Hitting people with catastrophic predictions will cause them to react in one of two ways. Fight or flight. We are basic animals when presented with a threat. What the split is on fight or flight is difficult to predict but let’s say for argument sake it’s 50/50. How do you go about convincing the 50% who flee? You need them onside but hitting them hard will likely make it much more difficult to convince them. While it is frustrating, a better approach is to allow people to come around to the realisation that there are potentially dire consequences in their own time. Sure, we have to nudge them, but when they come to their own realisation they are also more likely to take real ownership of their new found convictions. I hate the term “mother nature” but I’ll use it here. Mother nature is starting to nudge the consciousness in many people now. They are starting to become genuinely concerned and I am confident that it won’t be long before those in power will be forced to do what needs to be done. it may take an ice free Arctic, or some massive Antarctic ice shelf collapse or uncontrollable forest fires etc etc but there will be something that tips it for the vast majority on an individual basis. Anyway, I will endeavour to read a few of the sources you recommended so that I can make a more informed comment.
Martin, my challenge to you is to try another comment at WUWT about Anthony claiming that we are disappointed that people won’t die of malaria. As you know I posted here about it comparing that to the Heartland billboard. Should be easy enough if you are your usual polite self but see how you go including a link to that post. I don’t have a prize I can give you though.
My wife is just home from a long stay in her native Fukushima, Japan. Sorry, I can’t give more of a follow up now, but your and Neil’s related points about making allowance for people’s aversion to being hit over the head with dire predictions are well taken.
Thanks for your contribution Steve. Some interesting reading ahead for me.
Steve, are you aware that the risk of death from cancer secondary to air pollution in Tokyo is higher than the risk of canccer due to radioctivity at Fukishima?. In other words if you currently live in Tokyo and move to Fukishima, your cancer risk improves. Thought the facts might help you to chill.
Hi Ian, If people would only go and follow bravenewclimate they might form more educated opinions, alas it will not happen
Hansen, thirty years ago.
“The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.”
pretty much spot on, there has been research on just how many would panic and go deeper into denial and how many would go into fight mode,if the full consequences were revealed.
have not found the paper but believe that the figure for the deeper denial or just into denial was about 20%, we may just have to abandon them and get the actual consequences that are in store out into the open, catering to these types by remaining reticent will do nothing to solve the problem.
So in that NeilT i am with you all the way, FFS we know the consequences, it is not like the planet has never been 5DegC warmer in the past.
Hansen has been and continues to be, very through in working through the impacts of changing the atmospheric CO2 mix.
So long as the 20% are not super rich industrialists and bought politicians, we can afford to cast them aside. However it’s always a very good thing to remember that the 20% cast off are voters and most elections are won on a much smaller swing than that.
Also the clamouring of the 20% has a spin off effect in lulling people who would fight into thinking they don’t need to do anything for a few decades.
I watch and observe and wonder how such a stupid verson of humanity managed to build such a large and vibrant society…. Wonders will never cease.
My concern is not so much the survival of the species, we have proven we could survive on the moon given sufficient incentive to do so. I’m more concerned about the amount of our population who will have to be sacrificed to that survival goal, for the want of some relatively small changes, year on year, right now.
Back at WUWT, the discussion has reverted to endulging in mutual reinfocement of the ‘Watermelon’ meme… So I decided to blow that out of the water as well with this:
‘Trying to equate environmentalists with fascicts (or communists) is ridiculous. Leaving aside the fact that environmental sustainability only really became an issue (as Sir Fred Hoyle predicted) after the Earth had been photographed from space, I very much doubt an advisor to any dictator (e.g. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot, Gaddafi, or Saddam Hussein) would have survived very long if they had attempted to get their leader to “consider the environment” before doing anything. This is because autocratic governments and dictators (and wealthy business elites) tend to have a utilitarian attitude to the environment (and are only concerned about self-enrichment and/or preservation).
Indeed, the most revelatory piece of analysis of Karl Marx I have ever read is that by Jack Goody (bizzarely in a 2004 book entitled Capitalism and Modernity: The Great Debate) who, whilst accepting that capitalism has been “…connected with the growth of rationality and of secularisation; more recently with urbanisation and industrialisation”, also noted that for Marxist regimes “…modern meant industrialisation without capitalism.”.
Given that it is very hard to explain what is now happening unless you concede that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause, it is also ridiculous to assert that there is no reason to be concerned. It doesn’t matter how much you pick away at the edges of ‘the carpet’ (with your UHI and TOBS distractions), it is not going to unravel: The enhanced greenhouse effect is one of the most well-understood concepts in modern science (as are the cooling effects of other forms of industrial pollution). Therefore, no-one should be surprised that warming has taken so long to become obvious.’
Last time I complained about my comments not appearing at WUWT, I was told to stop whinging, that it happens a lot, and to re-submit. So I did; but my questions were still not answered.
I have now submitted the above comment three times and each time it disappeared after being asigned a comment number. I have now tried once more removing words like “ridiculous” which may well be blacklisted, but the same thing has happened. I am inclined to think therefore, that AW has spat out the dummy again and blacklisted me once again for offering only “spoon fed talking points”; for being a “time-sink”; and for being “misguided”…
How lovely it must be to live in WUWTderland.
Welcome to my world. Watts and his flying monkeys are becoming increasingly irrelevant as they become more and more ludicrous.
“Watts and his flying monkeys are becoming increasingly irrelevant..”
Yea, that’s why his blog has crossed the 125 million views level. Nobody even visits that site anymore. They’re all over here and Marty’s site now. Lol!
As usual, Klem, you are getting all triumphalist over something about which no-one should be proud – the ability of humans to hide from unpleasant truths.
http://climatecrocks.com/2012/09/11/911-and-why-facts-matter/
I am bound to ask how your own blog is coming along? While you prance around the Internet leaving your oh-so-clever remarks everywhere that you can, my blog has now reached people in at least 50% of UN countries.
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/hello-to-about-50-of-the-world/
Martin,you made the point that environmental sustainability only really became an issue after the Earth had been photographed from space, which is very true. Remember in the 1980s when that photograph showed the hole in the ozone layer? Very dramatic. The press went nuts, pressure was on , and the Montreal Protocol outlawing CFCs was quickly signed. Just one thing, Martin. Please do a quick google for “Forty Years of Ozone at Oxford, A History”, which was published in Annals of Optics in 1965. The author was Gordon Charles Dobson. We measure ozone in dobson units. On page 307, he mentions an interesting scientific phenomenon that his team discovered in 1956 , and again in 1957, and every Antarctic spring thereafter. For 3 months, every antarctic spring, the ozone levels drop from about 300 to 150, before suddenly returning to normal. As we didnt have any CFCs in the 1950s, poor Dobson blamed this “relative ozone lack” on three other factors; 1 during the long Antarctic winter, the sun’s rays dont interract with the stratosphere to produce ozone, so no ozone is produced for 7 months. 2.the circumpolar vortex, which goes right up to the stratosphere, stops infilling.3. The third factor was the intense cold. The colder the antarctic atmosphere , the bigger the o3 drop, [the bigger the "hole"]. Dont take my word for it, read it yourself. It is behind a paywall, so you might have to shell out $10. Note to moderater-please read Dobson before deleting. This review article was written long before anyone was concerned re climate change. I have a hard copy in my left hand drawer. Real paper, real numbers, real scientist.
While I could take offence at this “Note to moderater-please read Dobson before deleting.” I won’t. I’ll just let you know that I’m not in the censorship business because I’m not Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre or Jo Nova. I have read Dobson and his work was seminal in understanding natural variability of ozone due to the factors you mentioned. I am failing to see your point though because none of that is in contention. Here is a pretty good review.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2011Q2/558/solomon1999.pdf
I too fail to see the relevance of the point you are making, except that it demonstrates that it takes decades to get humans to admit they have a problem but, once they do, they are capable of taking effective action to rectify it.
I truly hope that you are not disputing that CFC’s were the main reason the problem got so bad but, if you are, don’t bother telling me, I guess you also think DDT should not have been banned; smoking does not cause lung cancer; and that HIV does not cause AIDS…
One final point, although I am again unclear as to the point you were seeking to make, Dobson’s paper was not written “long before anyone was concerned re climate change”.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
If we read Watts’ preamble, he clearly states it’s “moderated”. Read only what they want to hear….
At least we are finally getting some traction. We are making points he can’t answer so must block.
Which starts to tarnish his “open door any topic” stance. It may not hurt today but it will hurt as time goes on.
Yes but, this is getting ridiculous. I condensed my earlier comment down to two sentences. Although its existence was acknowedged, the whole comment was deemed “inappropriate” and snipped.
All I said was: “There is no comparison between environmentalism and fascism (or communism), because all dictators have a utilitarian attitude to the environment.”… Although I suspect the whole thing got snipped because of the second sentence: “However, if it makes you feel better, I guess that you will all carry on asserting otherwise.”
Let’s see how this goes. Here is my response.
“Peronsally I’ve noticed that it was the Fascists and Communists who tended to create their own view of reality. Rather than going with the facts.”
Good luck with that. I think, once you are on Anthony’s blacklist it’s difficult to get off it. Changing names and email is no good because he has your IP address, which was alluded to in the Hitler video.
But he did. I wonder when it will dawn on them what I’m talking about????
It seems innocuous enough until you think about it.
I am sure they are all agreeing with you in that it reinforces their belief that we are all communists and fascists…ironically
Yes they;re not to hot on the original thought processes are they….
I am astonished this was permitted – you used the word “reality” in a way that clearly implies they are living in an alternative one. I will try my first sentence again…
Pingback: Another Week of GW News, September 9, 2012 – A Few Things Ill Considered
You know after reading some of the comments here, it all just sounds like sour grapes to me. WUWT is still the number one climate change site, and yours aren’t. Too bad.
And all the whining about your comments being deleted or you being banned from the WUWT, so what! Its Anthony’s site he can do what he wants with it, just like you can. I’ve been banned from Lacks site, I just go elsewhere, no biggy. Harden up Princess.
cheers
With all due respect, Klem, I’m not whining about it at all. If anything it just reaffirms what I already knew about Anthony and he has done me a favour in that regard. As for him being the “number one climate change site”, you forgot the word “disinformation”.
In an earlier comment you mention all the followers he has, well, what can I say other than shit attracts a lot of flies. Now, do you actually have anything of any value to add, Klem or are you just going to continue with your juvenile silliness?
” WUWT is still the number one climate change site…”
Yep..which just follows on the knowledge that the largest number of ‘sheeple”–a fave term of your ilk–are easily misled by the pabulum of soft thinking and lack of scientific rigor, which, as evidenced by the near-complete lack of ANY credible science training in Watts and most of his commentariat, is shown in his large numbers. Numbers which are meaningless, except in terms of clicks-per-dollar, not clicks-for-knowledge.
But…. but….but Tony doesn’t *censor* comments…he SAID so! Only us ‘warmists’ on our blogs do that!
/sarc…;)
Sorry for delay Harry, Mike is away and have been Moderating, all your comments should go straight through now
cheers
JB
No wukka, mate! I never expect them o go through fast, and I usually try to not use bad words…;)