Why no one cares about global warming.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@jezzaOZ

You are two emotive terms behind.

First it was global warming (actually global cooling was earlier but I’ll follow the trend)

Then it was climate change because statistically significant warming wasn’t being observed (NB the term ‘significant’ is a mathematical/statistical term)

This is a myth. Both climate change and global warming have been used in climate science for a long time, including during periods where the earth was unequivocally warming. In fact, climate change is the older and universally more common term. They mean different things, and are used as such.

When ‘climate change’ wasn’t emotive enough, they changed it to ‘climate disruption’ .

I have literally never heard this term before. For what it’s worth, it gets about a tenth of the results on google scholar that climate change does, and about a fifth of the results that global warming does.

@Shodan

We don’t have enough reliable information to determine if global warming is the Number One issue facing us, one of the issues facing us, or not an issue at all.

We can’t do a reasonable cost-benefit analysis until we are reasonably sure of the consequences, and one side is given to exaggeration and the other to denial.

Given to exaggeration? Really? I wasn’t aware that peer-reviewed literature had the tendency to allow for such flights of fancy. :rolleyes: Care to provide actual solid examples?

Nobody is going to make the hard decisions until they have to, and saying “we can’t wait until we are certain - we must act NOW!!!” is stupid. Even if we act NOW!!! we have no reason to believe that the Chinese and Indians are going to follow in our footsteps - the Chinese record on pollution is atrocious, and I decline to believe that they are going to do an about-face and stifle their economy in the interests of preventing a calamity we cannot be sure is real,

See, the problem here, above all else? You’re just wrong. There have been numerous cost-benefit analyses on curbing global warming. In every case, we know that the effects of the earth warming are going to be disastrous. There’s not a whole lot of “maybe”. There’s no “we cannot be sure this is real”. To claim such is to completely ignore the evidence available.

The Democrats are not better than the Republicans in this matter - on the SDMB, global warming is only interesting insofar as it can be used as a stick to beat Republicans, and when it actually comes down to it Obama (and Harry Reid and the rest of the alleged greenies) do not put their money where their mouth is, especially on nuclear power, and when Obama thought he could throw a half billion dollars at Solyndra and make solar happen by fiat it went tits-up and cost the US a thousand jobs.

Funny story about that. Regardless of how those on the right bitched and moaned about it, the loan program turned a profit. Instead of, you know, the significant losses that were expected when it was proposed. See, when you give out a whole bunch of loans to various businesses in the hopes that they produce a good product, some of them will be losers. Some will default. Especially when dealing with a new, relatively unproven field. But all in all? The program was a massive success. Trying to paint it as a failure now is just flat-out wrong.

We cannot guarantee that throwing money at a problem will solve it. We are ten years away from practical fusion, and have been for the last forty years. We are twenty years away from practical solar, and have been for the last twenty years.

1990 called, it wants its smug assurance that renewables can’t work back. Solar is cheap now and only looking to get cheaper. They already produce around 7% of Germany’s total energy and that trend doesn’t seem to be stopping. Maybe it was twenty years away twenty years ago, but that is simply not the case any more.

The SDMB complains constantly about Fox News. The rest of the media is no better, they just have a different spin.

What? No other cable network is so explicitly and clearly anti-science. What are you even talking about? With regards to climate change, FOX is clearly worse than any other cable network. It’s not even debatable at this point. FOX is the modern equivalent of that one news source that claims that the earth is flat, while every other source has a slightly different take on the earth being spherical. It’s not perfect, but it beats the hell out of “global warming is a scam”.

[davida03801]

Budget Player with all due respect I was attempting to answer the original OP questions as to why many people are not accepting the climate change argument.

I understand you and many others are strong believers here, but also many are not. I understand it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to you. However to others there is reasonable doubt. Calling those who disagree flat earth types is a bit insulting. Long ago got the engineering degree plus more so I can read.

Not getting into a debate here, I was giving reasons in a respectful way to the OP. You can rant and rave all you want on point by point but I think it was a fair answer to the OP.

Done here, not replying again.

[Shodan]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

See, the problem here, above all else? You’re just wrong. There have been numerous cost-benefit analyses on curbing global warming. In every case, we know that the effects of the earth warming are going to be disastrous.

We “know” that, do we? Perhaps you could link to the cost-benefit analyses that rise to the level of “knowing” rather than “could be as much as…”

1990 called, it wants its smug assurance that renewables can’t work back. Solar is cheap now and only looking to get cheaper. They already produce around 7% of Germany’s total energy and that trend doesn’t seem to be stopping.

Germany has among the highest energy prices in Europe, and your cite says solar costs twice as much per kilowatt hour. And solar is heavily subsidized in Germany - I can’t tell if your cite accounts for the real cost, or includes the hidden costs of subsidies.

Given to exaggeration? Really? I wasn’t aware that peer-reviewed literature had the tendency to allow for such flights of fancy. Care to provide actual solid examples?

I didn’t mention only peer-reviewed journals. I was talking more about the recent report that was touted as final proof, because it said there was a one-in-three chance that the latest year was the warmest on record by a hundredth of a degree, or Algore’s idea that Mount Kilimanjaro is melting because of global warming, or hurricanes are getting stronger or more frequent, and things like that.

Regards,
Shodan

[GIGObuster]

@davida03801

Budget Player with all due respect I was attempting to answer the original OP questions as to why many people are not accepting the climate change argument.

I understand you and many others are strong believers here, but also many are not. I understand it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to you. However to others there is reasonable doubt. Calling those who disagree flat earth types is a bit insulting. Long ago got the engineering degree plus more so I can read.

Not getting into a debate here, I was giving reasons in a respectful way to the OP. You can rant and rave all you want on point by point but I think it was a fair answer to the OP.

Done here, not replying again.

A better response comes from the scientists that were skeptic and are conservative.

How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change

I gave a talk called “How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change” for the College of Science and Health at Utah Valley University. For those of you who aren’t familiar with me, I am a Republican and a geochemist who, until a few years ago, was quite skeptical about the idea that humans are causing significant climate change.

In the presentation, I briefly talked about how I had made the transition from being a climate change “skeptic” to being an outspoken advocate of mainstream climate science. I then discussed how it is that people like me can so effectively avoid the truth about climate change.

Photographer James Balog also had a similar journey and his TED talk was already linked to, as he explained many skeptics can deny the temperature record, but they can not deny natural thermometers like the ice caps.

They can explain properly why they were skeptics before and also show why they got convinced.

It does take a while indeed (and yes the Brickmore video is long, but important to see in this context), but really, the reasonable doubt you are talking about is not much reasonable once you take into account that most of the efforts to push for doubt are coming from powerful interest groups.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I agree entirely with the OP, except the part where it concludes that people are right not to worry because sometimes bad things didn’t happen. That part is stupid.

[GIGObuster]

@Shodan

We “know” that, do we? Perhaps you could link to the cost-benefit analyses that rise to the level of “knowing” rather than "could be as much as…"Germany has among the highest energy prices in Europe, and your cite says solar costs twice as much per kilowatt hour. And solar is heavily subsidized in Germany - I can’t tell if your cite accounts for the real cost, or includes the hidden costs of subsidies.

Talk like that only avoids the fact that there is a need to add the real cost of using the atmosphere as a sewer. Many in Europe already accepted this.

And what you missed was that most contrarian and conservative sites reported a few years back that subsidies were ending in Germany and those sites also made the spin that “you see! that shows that not even Germany trusts in solar power!”

What happened was that solar was getting so cheap that Germany decided to reduce the subsidies, solar continues to be used and developed.

@Shodan

I didn’t mention only peer-reviewed journals. I was talking more about the recent report that was touted as final proof, because it said there was a one-in-three chance that the latest year was the warmest on record by a hundredth of a degree,

And the scientists reported the odds to make the point that the odds of other years to be the warmest were not good at all, but the conservative and contrarian media spinned it to make them sound as dishonest. In reality the warming continues and it was the contrarian sources that claimed that we actually warming stopped or we were headed to a cooling phase the ones that lied.

But that never seems to tell something to many conservatives.

@Shodan

Or Algore’s idea that Mount Kilimanjaro is melting because of global warming,

Let me guess, they continue to press this bit in the right wing echo chamber huh?

That was not Al Gore but a third level Report from the IPCC that actually followed a typo from a report that was off by 100 years, as the Photographer that documented the ice loss from the glaciers can **show **you even that estimate may be optimistic.

@Shodan

or hurricanes are getting stronger or more frequent, and things like that.

Incomplete as usual, it seems that Kerry Emmanuel (yet another Republican scientist that understands the issues) was correct, and there are reasons why Hurricanes can become less frequent, but stronger once they manage to appear.

@Shodan

Regards,
Shodan

Not much there in reality.

[Sitnam]

@MrDibble

One explanation the OP doesn’t give, is the active, well-funded campaign by vested interested to push a denialist agenda.

They have more faith America and the world will do anything about it than Cecil or I do.

[GIGObuster]

Correction:

And the scientists reported the odds to make the point that the odds of other years to be the warmest were not good at all, but the conservative and contrarian media spinned it to make them sound as dishonest.** In reality the warming continues and it was the contrarian sources the ones that claimed that warming had stopped or that we were headed to a cooling phase the ones that lied to many conservatives.

But that never seems to tell something to them.**

[hotflungwok]

@RitterSport

I’m not sure why Y2K belongs in the list of predicted disasters that just went away. It didn’t happen because companies spent a ton of money and time reprogramming systems so that the Y2K bug didn’t happen. It wasn’t like people said, oh, that Y2K thing is really nothing, let’s do nothing about it.

Y2k is actually a good example to bring up in this case. One of the reasons that companies spent a ton of money and time reprogramming systems so Y2k didn’t happen was because of the dire threats and horrible predictions that were raised. If you went to the CEO of a company and said ‘There will probably be some problems, some customers stuff might not work right, we should spend a lot of your money to fix it’ you would get laughed at. But if you tell the same CEO ‘OMFG planes will fall out of the sky and all your money will vanish! We need to fix this now before civilization is dooooooomed!’ then they might listen.

People don’t care about global warming for the same reasons that people didn’t care about Y2k: it’s complicated and they don’t understand it, it’s a nebulous threat, it’s in the future, etc. If you want people to pay attention you need to educate them about what’s happening and show specific impacts on people lives.

Of course, getting the manipulative lying money grubbing politicians and their equally money grubbing friends to stop the manipulative lying and money grubbing would go a long way toward this.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@davida03801

Budget Player with all due respect I was attempting to answer the original OP questions as to why many people are not accepting the climate change argument.

I understand you and many others are strong believers here, but also many are not. I understand it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to you. However to others there is reasonable doubt. Calling those who disagree flat earth types is a bit insulting.

Well then, I encourage you to not speak out about scientific matters you have no idea about. There simply is not reasonable doubt that the earth is warming, that humans are the cause, and that the effects of this are going to suck.

[wolfpup]

@davida03801

Budget Player with all due respect I was attempting to answer the original OP questions as to why many people are not accepting the climate change argument.

No, you were not. The OP asks a question that, regardless of his intent or POV, is similar to one that many scientists are asking, too: why is the public so reluctant to accept the facts in the face of overwhelming evidence? What you provided are the usual denialist talking points about why climate change isn’t happening. Which I have provided some comments on below.

@davida03801

In the 1st place the experts generally are wrong.

So that’s your argument? Experts are always wrong, so ignore science and just go with what you prefer to believe or what Fox News tells you? Truthiness? Your argument is truthiness?

@davida03801

2nd we live in a world of disaster. Mankind always has, and always will, be effected by disasters. But yet you all in the climate change movement blame everything on climate change. It is almost like there were never hurricanes and tornadoes prior to 1990.

No, the scientific consensus blames climate change on increasing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

@davida03801

3rd you always make claims that then never occur. Remember Katrina and New Orleans ? Well per all the climate change advocates Katrina was just the start of a new wave of more violent hurricanes that were to be hitting the USA EVERY YEAR from that point on. How many years has it been since a Hurricane has made landfall to the US ? It is getting up to 8 or 9 now.

Science made no such prediction, nor are the number of hurricanes that make landfall in the US indicative of either the total number that form nor of global phenomena, nor is the North Atlantic alone the only relevant geography. What is clear is that higher sea surface temperatures create more energetic hurricanes, though not necessarily more of them, and possibly even fewer because climate change also creates disruptive factors. The reality is that the Power Dissipation Index of hurricanes has been dramatically increasing in direct proportion to rising SSTs.

@davida03801

4th all of the affects you all claim are climate based have been here before. There was very warm climate in Roman times, then again in the Medieval Warm Period. Glacial Ice receded dramatically back in the 1920’s now is again.

Wrong. Those were not periods of globally synchronous warmth, nor were they as warm as today; the WMP affected only parts of the Northern Hemisphere, mainly Europe, Greenland, and parts of Asia, and was probably caused by heat redistribution by oceanic cycles, similar to El Nino or the PDO. The earth doesn’t warm by magic. Currently it’s warming due to greenhouse gases, and it’s warming globally and with the expected Arctic amplification.

The “glacial ice” claim is completely false. This is Arctic sea ice extent in km[sup]2[/sup]x10[sup]6[/sup] since 1870. Northern hemisphere ice records can be seen here.

@davida03801

5th you never take into account that maybe, just maybe, there is nature’s cycles that perhaps account for much of what you claim is climate change.

5th you never take into account that maybe, just maybe, tens of thousands of climate scientists have studied the earth’s past climate and have a better understanding of natural cycles than you do.

@davida03801

6th you want the scientific process that has been in effect for hundreds of years to be suspended for your cause. For hundreds of years there was open scientific debate on all issues many of which took decades to resolve. You want that suspended.

I don’t think the other poster wants scientific debate suspended. I think the other poster understands and values scientific debate. Scientific debate is alive and well and scientific knowledge is extensive and growing. I think what the other poster wants, as do I, is for scientific discussions to be focused on scientific facts and not bullshit talking points from Fox News.

@davida03801

7th you all claim that anyone who disputes the climate change model is either in the pay of big oil, or ignorant, a denier, etc. When you resort to name calling it diminishes your argument, and it makes one think you not have much of an argument in the first place so therefore you have to resort to name calling.

The claim that many of the deniers are in the pay of big oil and industry is a claim that is made because it’s demonstrably true. The rest of the deniers are just their gullible victims and wishful thinkers.

@davida03801

All of the above, plus more, is a big part of the answer to your question.

“All of the above” amounts to nothing at all, because of the 7 points you think you made, exactly zero are valid.

[GIGObuster]

@davida03801

6th you want the scientific process that has been in effect for hundreds of years to be suspended for your cause. For hundreds of years there was open scientific debate on all issues many of which took decades to resolve. You want that suspended.

Not much to say to the other nonsense points, but one has to comment here that this is 100% wrong, and ignores history, in reality the “Galileos” were people like Callendar and Gilbert Plass, they had to to go against the consensus of about 60 years ago then that CO2 was not going to be a problem even if they understood how it warmed the earth. The consensus back then was that CO2 was not an issue because it was assumed that we understood how CO2 absorbed the infrared and that natural carbon sinks were dealing with all that humans emitted.

It turned that both ideas were wrong and the evidence was compelling, and nowadays there is no working scientific group that denies that. The point is that there was/is no suspension about the scientific debate, what contrarian sources of information do not tell you is that the debate was stronger decades ago, and nowadays it is not because of the evidence, and the fact that many contrarian scientists are getting caught with bad science and conflicts of interest with conservative groups that are supported by people from the fossil fuel industry.

The Slick Willie of Climate Denial – Science as “Deliverables” for the...

One of the most odious and dishonest practitioners of climate disinformation is Dr. Willie Soon. See above for a good example of what Exxon, the Koch Brothers, and others have been getting for their generous financial support. (good stuff starts at 2:20)

But, as in physics, often in the affairs of men, what goes around comes around.
It would appear that a rather awesome come-uppance is in the works for Dr. Soon. The New York Times is reporting on Soon’s forgetfulness in disclosing his ties to coal and oil barons when submitting “studies” to science journals.

@davida03801

7th you all claim that anyone who disputes the climate change model is either in the pay of big oil, or ignorant, a denier, etc. When you resort to name calling it diminishes your argument, and it makes one think you not have much of an argument in the first place so therefore you have to resort to name calling.

All of the above, plus more, is a big part of the answer to your question.

That was not name calling, that is based on evidence too, the sources that you use are getting information or are part of the sources that are poisoning the debate about what to do also.

In reality like with the anti vaccination issue there are several scientists that are willing to sell their trade and go against the common good.

[Voyager]

@davida03801

I understand you and many others are strong believers here, but also many are not. I understand it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to you. However to others there is reasonable doubt. Calling those who disagree flat earth types is a bit insulting. Long ago got the engineering degree plus more so I can read.

I don’t know what engineering degree you have, but if a biologist started giving opinions on some part of it you might think he was out of line. I’ve got an advanced CS degree, and I know enough about the intricacies of a field to know what I don’t know. I do know how publication works, and that is enough for me to accept the overwhelming consensus on this matter. You might think about why you think you are smarter than the overwhelming majority of the people working in this area.

[Voyager]

@Shodan

Nobody is going to make the hard decisions until they have to, and saying “we can’t wait until we are certain - we must act NOW!!!” is stupid. Even if we act NOW!!! we have no reason to believe that the Chinese and Indians are going to follow in our footsteps - the Chinese record on pollution is atrocious, and I decline to believe that they are going to do an about-face and stifle their economy in the interests of preventing a calamity we cannot be sure is real, even if we do.

When you are 35 and think about starting to save for retirement, you can’t be sure you will ever need the money. You might die first. Ditto 40, 45, 50. Yet I’m pretty sure that you’d consider someone just starting to save at 60 irresponsible.
The probability that climate change is happening is high enough that not acting now is irresponsible also.
At 35 you can save a reasonable amount, and not disrupt your life much. If you wait until 55 you may need to save a good chunk of your salary. Do you want to condemn our kids to making disruptive changes to their lives because we wouldn’t agree in a carbon tax or something?

[Deeg]

I think there are two main reasons people ignore CC:

Fixing it requires sacrifice. This is the big one. Few people want to make a sacrifice when they don’t totally understand the reasons and when the risk is (relatively) far in the future.

Fixing it requires government action. It’s less important than the first reason but it explains why some conservatives (and especially libertarians) refuse to accept AGW. I have never heard a hard-core libertarian support AGW because there is no libertarian solution to the problem (i.e. one that doesn’t require government action of some sort). I’m sure there are a few but I’ve never met one.

If some private company came up with a cheap solution to CC and AGW (e.g. geo-engineering) then the acceptance of CC/AGW would skyrocket.

[Algher]

@Deeg

I think there are two main reasons people ignore CC:

Fixing it requires sacrifice. This is the big one. Few people want to make a sacrifice when they don’t totally understand the reasons and when the risk is (relatively) far in the future.

Fixing it requires government action. It’s less important than the first reason but it explains why some conservatives (and especially libertarians) refuse to accept AGW. I have never heard a hard-core libertarian support AGW because there is no libertarian solution to the problem (i.e. one that doesn’t require government action of some sort). I’m sure there are a few but I’ve never met one.

If some private company came up with a cheap solution to CC and AGW (e.g. geo-engineering) then the acceptance of CC/AGW would skyrocket.

Add one more big one that Shodan mentioned:

Fixing it requires global cooperation - especially in nations such as China and India. They want to join us in the developed 1st world, and will do what it takes to get there. The United States making change is great, but not if all of our sacrifice is eaten up by developing nations playing catch up.

Personally - my solar array on my roof produces more electricity than I use on an annual basis. One of my cars is a hybrid. But after that - not sure what else people want me to do.

[Lobohan]

@Algher

Personally - my solar array on my roof produces more electricity than I use on an annual basis. One of my cars is a hybrid. But after that - not sure what else people want me to do.

The most important thing anyone can do is don’t vote for the imbeciles on the right who lie about this issue regularly and keep us from taking any steps to address it.

[wolfpup]

@Lobohan

The most important thing anyone can do is don’t vote for the imbeciles on the right who lie about this issue regularly and keep us from taking any steps to address it.

Seconded. Because what we do as individuals, while important, is limited in its impact. We may opt to conserve electricity but it doesn’t matter if what we and everyone around us is using comes from a pollution-belching coal plant. We may opt to be energy-efficient but it doesn’t matter if, for every person who does so, there are ten who don’t, and a few dumbasses who intentionally pollute just out of spite. We may opt to drive smaller cars or drive less, but it takes a collective will to design and build zero-emission vehicles and the infrastructure for them. And of course industrial interests are in the business of doing what is most cost-effective, and if that includes all the emissions they legally can get away with, it’s just good business to do so. Except for Koch Industries and a few others like them, where the operative philosophy is all the emissions they can get away with whether they’re legal or not, because they probably won’t get caught and the fines are minimal anyway.

That’s why lying imbeciles should be kicked out of office and replaced by responsible leaders.

[Algher]

@Lobohan

The most important thing anyone can do is don’t vote for the imbeciles on the right who lie about this issue regularly and keep us from taking any steps to address it.

Irrelevant in this gerrymandered age of elections. I live in Orange County, CA. My Congressional representation is fixed during the Republican primary, and my Senatorial choice will be whoever the Democrats choose.

But I do agree. One of my great regrets in life is that as a child I helped Jim Inhofe get into Congress. For that, I am very, very sorry.

[XT]

@wolfpup

That’s why lying imbeciles should be kicked out of office and replaced by responsible leaders.

Lying across the board or just lying on issues that you or someone else THINKS are important while being ok or handwaving away lies you think aren’t as important? Who decides what a lie is or when a politician is lying (my own test of this is…are their lips moving?? :p). And who decides, if not the voters since you seem to assume they can’t be trusted, who are the ‘responsible leaders’ to replace the liars with? You? Me? Do we form a committee to do it?

I have to agree with the OP on most of the points…people really don’t seem to care that much about global warming wrt where they prioritize the problem. I disagree that this is the fault, solely, of the Republicans or Faux News, or the Right Wing. The left and environmentalists have gotten plenty of shots at convincing the public about the dangers of global warming…in fact, IMHO they have gone over the top, and that’s part of why the public doesn’t take it seriously…it’s just another doomsday prediction, no different than the myriad others. That this time it might be serious, well, thus said the Shepard boy after his 9000th cry of ‘WOLF!’ (I thought that was funny and wanted to work in a play on wolfpup…that’s the best I could do though, sadly).

I don’t think a week goes by when I don’t see a global warming is going to kill us all show on one of the main satellite channels (History in it’s various flavors, TLC, Science, NatGeo, etc), and CNN regularly runs articles on it (in fact, they are running a weekly one right now on the 2 degrees thing, and plan to do it until the end of the year at least…based on the comments section it’s not as well received as some other topics they bring up). The Europeans, who presumably don’t watch Faux News OR have a Republican party seem to be doing a bit better than us, but it’s not as large a gap as you’d think compared to this (and part of their own downward trend recently is because a lot of Europe is in a recession)…and both are trending downward, and interestingly enough that trending is really similar despite the vast differences between the supposedly green minded (and Republican/Faux News free) Europeans and stubborn and greedy Americans who need folks to decide that the people voted in need to be replaced by better, more right thinking (or I guess Left thinking) politicians.

My take on this is that each side (or, in reality the myriad sides) has their own agenda and is willing to point out how the other guy isn’t doing his or her part while being unwilling to give on their own sacred cows. For instance, while a lot is said in these thread about how evil Republicans are (and no beef from me on that…they are evil bastards :p), you never hear how the Democrats aren’t pushing for stuff like nuclear power, which I think could make a huge difference in the US AND in Europe (outside of France of course who has been chugging along doing this for decades). Why? Well, obviously because the Democrats portion of the big tent has a lot of folks opposed, fundamentally, to nuclear power, of course…so, can’t have that.

I’ll know that the Left REALLY takes global warming seriously and thinks it’s an existential threat when I see them link arms and get behind a massive push for building a boatload and a half of nuclear power plants (NEW nuclear power plants) in the US and throughout Europe. At that point, if the Right doesn’t respond with something then I’ll feel that the Left (or at least the Democrats in the US) is justified in calling them out because they will have made a real sacrifice in attempting to address this global issue. Or, conversely, if the Right (or the Republicans in the US) unite behind a platform of seriously addressing the deniers in their midst AND some sort of carbon tax or increase in taxes impacting the price of gas at the pump/barrel (which I think could also have a real, measurable impact on CO2 emissions in the US…the Europeans already do this, though interestingly it doesn’t seem to have lowered their emissions wrt the US by all that much). Until then, from my perspective, it’s pot and kettle deciding who has the grimier butt…