Ah, the beleaguered environment.
Lavoisier Group to the rescue!
Wow!

Bob Dylan: "You dont need a weathervane to see which way the wind is blowing"

Ray Evans and his fellow "true believers" over at the IPA etc etc are the very epitome of one dimensional "rational" man. Totally embedded in the reductionist ideology of scientific materialism, and (sometimes when they talk "religion") its Protestant equivalent---Weber's Iron Cage.
This site discusses the baneful limitations of the ideology of scientism--as distinct from the practice of the method of science, which is free enquiry into everything done without any prior presumptions of what is True, Real, or possible.

1. www.aboutadidam.org/lesser_alternatives/scientific_materialism/index.html

AS stated on previous posts, anyone gullible enough to hold evolution as science is bound to come up with all sorts of contradictions. The High Priests of GW are intolerant of those who want to look at facts. Its a pity that our pollies are now having to play the game. I doubt whether many of them seriously believe a lot of the nonsense being preached. I hope I am around in 30 years time to see what the newest bandwagon is. Obviously no one takes any notice of the doomsdayers of the 1970's and 80's who are now preaching another doomsday message instead with a different set of fudged and manipulated data.

This piece of gobbledegook is mining industry propaganda, pushed by people who don't care what sort of planet we leave to our grandchildren.

Quoting from sourcewatch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group

The Lavoisier Group is a global warming skeptic organisation, based in Australia. It argues that the evidence for global warming is based on inexact science and that any policy responses, such as signing the Kyoto Protocol, would be too expensive for Australia's industry.

The group is closely associated with the Australian mining industry, and was founded in 2000 by Ray Evans, then an executive at Western Mining Corporation (WMC), who was also involved in founding the HR Nicholls Society and the Bennelong Society. Hugh Morgan, former WMC boss and head of the Business Council of Australia until 2005, delivered the group's inaugural speech.

Lavoisier is a fairly small operation, with under 100 members and an annual budget of around $10,000. [1]

"I suppose when you reject God you need to hold on to some belief and dress it up as science." Same for evolution, then? Gosh, Runner. You might as well repudiate mathematics. Einstein would NOT be impressed.

He did have an opinion, though - science without religion is lame; reigion without science is blind. Not much point having all the (empirical) answers if you don't know what to do with them. Then again, at least you'll see what's coming. The O.T. doesn't go into a lot of detail about atmospherics, you see.

It's not all doom and gloom. There's something to be said for science. Come to the Dark Side, Runner. You CAN have it both ways, you know!

The sceptics continue to base their claims on supposed flaws in Michael Manns "Hockey Stick". That issue was investigated and dismissed by a recent US house of reps enquiry. The consistent message of that enquiry is best expressed by this transcript:

http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_congress/7_27_06.cfm

The US National Acedemy of Science had similar findings.

If there is any criticism it should be reserved for Mann's ego - for refusing to address his critics, rather than the IPCC.

The Australian Financial Review revealed this week that all of the major Aluminium companies are looking to set up with new hydro projects in Malaysia and PNG. Its pretty obvious that they will set up where the cheapest clean energy sources are - regardless of whether Australia has emmissions trading or not.

They will factor in the price of carbon emissions regardless of Australia's actions. Australia needs to hurry up and invest in the development of cheap sources of clean energy or lose its competitive advantage. Emissions trading is the most efficient method of achieving that.

The market is quickly recognising the requirements of operating in a carbon constrained world - thats globalisation in action.

The current guilt-ridden hysteria, which seems to have captured the chattering classes ......

Stopped reading about here. The argument for GW, and human kinds causing it, is based on science. This guy sounds the same as so many of his bull headed buddies. If I choose to drink latte and have a chat regarding the future of the planet, so be it. If Ray and his grunting, capitalist mates want to swill and denounce science, so be it. Nice try Ray.

billie, I've learned to assume that when when someone says what a load of rubish something is and then goes on to make the author look bad without providing any rebuttal to the points made by the author that they don't have a rebuttal.

Are the specific claims made by the author fact or fiction?

If fact then why are they not important?

In my own case I tend to see the whole thing as a bit like the smoking issue, there are plenty of experts around who will say what you want to hear but while the debate was raging the smart money was on not smoking (just in case).

R0bert

Panaitan,

You say "The consistent message of [the US House of Reps] enquiry is best expressed by this transcript:

http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_congress/7_27_06.cfm

which is the testimony of ONE INDIVIDUAL.

"OVERALL," however, says the actual report, "our committee believes that Dr. Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium CANNOT be supported by his analysis." [my emphasis]

The US NAS report that you then refer to says:

"Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. EVEN LESS CONFIDENCE can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales." [my emphasis]

Investigated and dismissed? Which reports are you reading?

Ray Evans raises a very good point about european cooling from 1945 to 1975 and the subsequent cyclical warming that has followed since then. This is highly relevant to the discussion on melting arctic ice sheets which has been abused by Gore et al to scare the kids on sea level rises, the death of Polar Bears and any other scam they can think of.

All the official "science" on ice melt is based on satellite data which has only been available since 1978. And given the well documented temperature changes since 1975, the ice sheet data tells the same story of receding pack ice.

But Ian Mott, at http://ianmott.blogspot.com/ or
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001874.html#comments, has cross checked the ice data with detailed 1960's vintage maps that show that the ice sheet today is little different to what it was in 1960. The so-called "threat" from shrinking ice sheet is nothing more than movements that are well within the recent historical range of variation.

The official, well funded "science" is guilty of gross extrapolation from limited data.

Did any one else listen to the Australian of the Year, Professor Tim Flannery being interviewed by Margaret Throsby on ABC Classic yesterday morning? You can download the whole intervew from ABC http://www.abc.net.au/classic/throsby/

Key points that I noted

1. At the time of Chaucer when it was warm enough in western Europe for grapes to grow in England other parts of the planet were cooler in the same 300 year period.

2 Global warming, at the time of Julius Caesar the average temperature on earth was 13.7 celsicus, it is now 14.7. Most of this warming has occured in the last 50 years. So when we are talking about a 1 degree rise in earth's temperature this is a big deal.

3. By accident of geology Australia has a source of geothermal power that could meet Australia's base electricity needs for 100 years. It would take 10 years to bring it on line, we own the technology and there would be no radioactive waste to dispose of.

No we don't have control over our planet but when the average temperature in Australia rises by 3 degrees most agriculture will cease. CSIRO climate models predict a 6 degree increase in NSW with 50 years.

I have more faith in scientists than I have in mining company executives who have been trained in how to extract minerals from the earth's core.

I admit freely that I don't know much about the differing agenda's of those involved in the current climate debate, nor do I have any but the most general knowledge of climate control. What I do know however, is that the historical climate changes of which the author speaks are all verifiable. Both primary and secondary extant historical sources attest to this, as do archeological data.

While I don't have enough knowledge either to agree or disagree with the article per se, I can offer the objective fact that the effects of such changes are an integral and empirical component of historical study.

"Primitive societies?" "Chattering classes?"

But hang about. Antoine Lavoisier was beheaded during the French Revolution - wasn't he? And he instructed his assistant to count the number of words his severed head attempted to mouth.

Since Mr Evan's group has adopted the famous/infamous? Lavoisier's name, shouldn't they know a little more about the chemistry of burning fossil fuels. Lavoisier, branded a traitor, was a tax collector but also a renowned chemist, though he had a tendency to use the results of others without acknowledgement then draw conclusions (often erroneous) of his own.

Mr Evans is correct to a point. Climate change and global warming is part evolutionary - always has been. Even the "primitive societies" and "chattering classes" acknowledge that. The concern is the attribution of anthropogenic pollutants from burning hydrocarbons.

It is scientifically proven that hundreds of different burnt hydrocarbons are carcinogenic to humans and animals. Benzene for example is a Category 1 carcinogen. Dioxin (a result of poor combustion from industrial stacks) is a DNA altering carcinogen along with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and tetrachloroethene.

All these chemicals, when burnt, convert to CO2.

Man spews these compounds into the atmosphere by the billions of tonnes.

Why don't the Lavoisier group acknowledge the profound health impacts of man's uncontrolled, unregulated emissions of fossil fuels?

And what right does anyone have to suggest that we continue to play tit for tat with Mother Nature?

If for no other reason other than the health of humans and animals, these emissions must be drastically reduced.

Most reasonable people know that for every action there's a reaction though there is often, such a lag time, that one forgets the action which started the reaction.

Mr Evans may take heart in the business-dominated task force's recommendation of an international carbon trading scheme - which is just another joke, implemented to protect the status quo.

In the meantime, the destruction of the environment from man-made sources will become even more evident and planet earth will continue to rebel in her objections to the pollution of her atmospheres, lands, oceans, forests and all living species.

Lavoisier - yes, a most appropriate connotation with the author of this particular article:
The unfortunate M. Lavoisier, the famous Chemist who got the chop, was told when his fate was being determined: "We have no need for men of science".

As a layperson in the Global Warming debate I have read the recent IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and just finished reading Tim Flannery’s book “The Weather Makers”

The IPCC Report graphs the global mean temperature for the last 150 years (pg 17).
The cooling period from about 1940 to 1975 caught my eye. I do not think the report made any mention of this period other than another graph (pg 18) showing the greatest decline in temperature took place in North America.

Flannery explained it thus on Pg 159/160 “ Scientists now think that the temperature decline of the 1940’s to 1970’s was caused by aerosols, with sulphur dioxide being particularly responsible.”
With the ‘scrubbing’ of sulphur dioxide from the emissions from coal power plants in the 1970’s it’s sunlight reflective capability was lost, exposing the global warming trend we have seen since.

With sulphur dioxide degrading at 1% to 2% at normal humidity ( Flannery pg 160) per hour and a finite number of coal burning power stations operating 1940 to 1975, can someone tell me the tonnage or ppm of emitted sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere at any one time during this cooling period?

The figure cannot be all that high meaning that the reflective capability of sulphur dioxide must be extraordinary high to be particularly responsible for cooling the earth

Of course we don't control climate. Perhaps global warming is just part of a natural cycle to which mankind contributes only a small part. But that part, whether small or large, can be influenced by our actions now and in the future. Maybe we can't influence that part which is part of the ongoing cycle but that doesn't mean we can just sit back and do nothing. When there has been significant climate change in the past we did not have the world population we have now, we didn't have the global integrated economies (especially agriculture) that we have now. If the current trend towards warming continues for the rest of this century there will be major ramifications for all life on the planet. Maybe our best efforts can only alleviate the effects at the margins but we owe it to all still to come to give our best efforts - sticking our fingers in our ears and shutting our eyes in the hope it all just goes away is just not good enough.

Good onyer Ray! We can't be TOO dogmatic, of course - because the natural world is imperfectly understood; but Billie was off the mark when he/she said: "At the time of Chaucer it was warm enough in western Europe for grapes to grow in England, other parts of the planet were cooler in the same 300 year period." Previous papers, and now Miyahara et al 2006, "Variations of solar cyclicity during the Spoerer Minimum" J. Geophys. Res. v.111 A03103, tie cold/warm cycles in NW Europe to variations in solar activity. But solar activity is NOT a local phenomenon - its influence is more likely to be hemisphere-wide, or indeed global. The Mediaeval Warm Period and (say) Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) are events closely matching solar variability. It is implausible that these externally-driven variations are local - rather than regional and global. This raises a far broader question. Is observation still the underpinning of science - or is it now belief? Doubtless, Galileo, Darwin and Wegener would all have had a view.

Good onyer Ray! We can't be TOO dogmatic, of course - because the natural world is imperfectly understood; but Billie was off the mark when he/she said: "At the time of Chaucer it was warm enough in western Europe for grapes to grow in England, other parts of the planet were cooler in the same 300 year period." Previous papers, and now Miyahara et al 2006, "Variations of solar cyclicity during the Spoerer Minimum" J. Geophys. Res. v.111 A03103, tie cold/warm cycles in NW Europe to variations in solar activity. But solar activity is NOT a local phenomenon - it is more likely to be hemisphere-wide, or indeed lobal. The Mediaeval Warm Period and (say) Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) are events matching solar variability. It is implausible that these externally-driven variations are local - rather than regional and global. This raises a far broader question. Is observation the underpinning of science - or is it belief? Galileo, Darwin, Wegener would all have had a view.

Like it or not, "Global Warming" is now firmly on the political agenda, and anyone who tries to inject any rational argument that does not coincide with the premise that it is all the fault of carbon emissions is condemned to be ignored, vilified and - probably in the not too distant future - imprisoned for treason.

So if you are young and smart, you will swot up on the details of carbon trading and join a broker, to make a margin on every trade. The European Exchange alone traded over US20bn last year, and - according to Vancouver's straight.com, a "United Nations study says the market could be worth an astonishing $2 trillion a year by 2012"

So, forget hedge funds, boys. Hop onto the carbon credit gravy train.

Way before 2012, they will have found their way into our pension funds and at that point will have become fully institutionalized. While the question "do they actually contribute to solving Global Warming" will long have become a non-question.

Yet the evidence is clear that carbon credits are useful in theory only, simply transferring Northern Hemisphere Global Warming guilt into a profitable financial instrument. The schemes devised by the seller of the credit either deliver dubious measurable benefits (see the raging controversy on monoculture tree plantations http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/45696/), or are downright idiotic. From India's Frontline magazine:

"Nearly 60 per cent of projects aim at destroying trifluoromethane (HFC-23), a potent GHG, in incinerators, which cost, according to one estimate, just $31 million to build and run for a year but generate an absurdly high $800 million worth of CERs."

So stop whinging about the evidence being flimsy. Sit back and enjoy, or get on board and have some fun.

H L Mencken got it right when he said:

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

He also said:

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance"

So billie, Lavoisier is criticised for being small and lowly-funded, while other organizations are attacked for being big with money behind them. You just can't win in your world.

"The potential risks to the global environment are simply too serious to ignore. ...I [endorse the] deep concerns regarding the impact of greenhouse emissions on rising sea levels and changing weather patterns ... especially low lying island nations. ... Australia will play its part in tackling the problem of climate change."

Guess who said it. Back in 1997?

OK, I admit it. I am SO NOT worried about these silly articles.

OLO: These articles are getting very boring. We've gone over all of this a dozen times.

Boring. Boring. Boring. Boring. Boring.

Funny really, that an article complaining about hysteria and dogmatism among climate scientists should be so, well, hyserical and, er, dogmatic.

A small suggestion Ray, you might look at updating your cliches. All the old favorites were there, "political correctness" "guilt-ridden hysteria", even "chattering classes". I'm sure that stuff goes down a treat at the H.R. Nicholls Society, but the rest of us have moved on.

For those who are interested the Observer article is here http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2000533,00.html Prof John Turner of (potted bio here http://www.iamas.org/People%20Profiles/Turner.html) "using records returned by Russian research balloons that were flown over the whole of Antarctica between 1971 and 2003, discovered that temperatures in the lowest level of the atmosphere over the continent have already risen by about 0.7C. Their paper, in Science, was published in March, too late for inclusion in the IPCC's deliberation." I suppose Turner is another one of those "decarbonising radicals"?

Good to see white knight Richard Castles defending the poor beleaguered Lavoisier Group, especially seeing as he's made it very clear that HE'S NOT A MEMBER OF the Institute of Public Affairs and so therefore not associated in any way with the Lavoisier Group.

Ray should have mentioned his launch at Parliament House. You're all invited http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/ninefactslaunch.pdf
Give our regards to Sir Arvi Parbo, won't you, Ray?

We have all this handringing about the West being the cause of Global warming and thus must sign the Kyto Protocol to appease the UN.

It was western science and technology that brought about the Industrial revolution.Better food technology and antibiotics enabled third world countries to expand their populations beyond sustainable limits,but not one of the do gooders have even hinted at contraception as also being a solution.

So under Kyoto,poor countries can continue to pollute,increase their populations,while we suffer poverty.

There has to be a rule for all that accounts for not only greenhouse emissions but unsustainable population growth.Guess what,the UN won't engage the either the reality nor the truth because their biased agenda is about destroying Anglo civilisation,the foundation of modern prosperity and democracy.

The only problem with geothermal energy is that it is all out near Roxby Downs. And moving energy intensive industries to the source would produce a few staffing and transport problems, to say the least.

Unless of course, we dug a canal to Lake Eyre and let the sea and ships in. We could line the place with resorts and canal developments on 1000km of new waterfront land at the same Latitude as Byron and Brisbane. And I saw somewhere that the annual evaporation (2 gigalitres/km2) from the lake would use up so much water that the flow from Port Augusta would be continuous and drive enough turbines to power most of Adelaide.

It might also soak up a bit of sea level rise to boot and would inject a minimum 20,000 gigalitres of water vapour into the desert sky and some additional rainfall into the Murray-Darling Basin.

If we really need to fix a big problem then there is no point pissing about with windmills and Kyoto Interruptus.

Response to Perseus:

A very interesting idea. Lake Eyre is already about 20 metres below sea level. Perhaps someone write an article about it and we could discuss.

http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~skot/bigschemes/lake_eyre/index.html#letters

Actually some of us have already discussed it
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4053

But not me :(

There has been a lot made of an alleged scientific “consensus” on AGW. But consensus is not part of the scientific method, and many eminent climatologists disagree.

Canada’s Fraser Institute has provided a sensible assessment of the AGW science in its Independent Summary for Policy makers response to the IPCC Report. It notes that –

The Earth’s climate is an extremely complex system and we must not understate the difficulties involved in analyzing it. Despite the many data limitations and uncertainties, knowledge of the climate system continues to advance based on improved and expanding data sets and improved understanding of meteorological and oceanographic mechanisms.

The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200 years, and the land-based surface temperature record of the past 100 years exhibits warming trends in many places. Measurement problems, including uneven sampling, missing data and local land-use changes, make interpretation of these trends difficult. Other, more stable data sets, such as satellite, radiosonde and ocean temperatures yield smaller warming trends. The actual climate change in many locations has been relatively small and within the range of known natural variability. There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway.

The available data over the past century can be interpreted within the framework of a variety of hypotheses as to cause and mechanisms for the measured changes. The hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions have produced or are capable of producing a significant warming of the Earth’s climate since the start of the industrial era is credible, and merits continued attention. However, the hypothesis cannot be proven by formal theoretical arguments, and the available data allow the hypothesis to be credibly disputed. (continued below)

(continued) Arguments for the hypothesis rely on computer simulations, which can never be decisive as supporting evidence. The computer models in use are not, by necessity, direct calculations of all basic physics but rely upon empirical approximations for many of the smaller scale processes of the oceans and atmosphere. They are tuned to produce a credible simulation of current global climate statistics, but this does not guarantee reliability in future climate regimes. And there are enough degrees of freedom in tunable models that simulations cannot serve as supporting evidence for any one tuning scheme, such as that associated with a strong effect from greenhouse gases.

There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing. (end)

Alert readers will note that the Fraser Institute’s assessment is similar to that of the recent “Dual Critique” of the Stern Report by economists and scientists.

Faustino, while the Fraser Institute may be independent, it is hardly a values-free zone. Check here for more detail http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fraser_Institute "The Fraser Institute received $120,000 US from ExxonMobil in 2003-'04, according to the company's annual report. [Fraser Institute President Michael] Walker said the funding paid for the work of researcher [global warming skeptic] Ken Green."

Foolish of me, Richard Castles, to confuse you with Ian Castles. Mind you, your views sound quite similar...

Johnj, to be quite honest, I don't even understand your comment, but given that you seem to have missed the point of mine, that's understandable.

Thanks for the links to the Lake Eyre threads, David, I hadn't seen them before. It is a topic that probably needs some serious sorting of wheat from chaff so I will see who I can rope into doing an article. I thought Geek100 showed a good grasp of the numbers but am not too convinced on the economics of building 3000m mountains from scratch when all that is needed is shifting dirt about 200 metres to one side of a ditch with a drag line.

A good case for nuclear engineering perhaps, Perseus?

JohnJ. If Prof John Turner had bothered to include the data from the previous period from 1945 to 1970 he would have been bound to report that temperatures went down by much the same amount. In fact, he had absolutely no moral right to exclude that data because it was our right to know it. But he did not do so. He allowed us to be misled by the withholding of highly relevant information.

That is not my idea of a "respected scientist" and it certainly invites healthy scepticism as to the value of his peers, who appear to have remained silent about the same omission.

Johnj, reference to Exxon funding of Fraser Institute might have some cred if it wasnt for the inconvenient fact that most if not all those on the Gullible Warming side were on the public purse with its own vested interests.

BTW, the figure is $60kUS not $120k, and even then it is miniscule compared to the magnitude of the public funds being poured into propping up the IPCC industry, and the inevitable sinecures that always flow, at our cost, and to our detriment.

What to do!!
Interesting reading, but I'm from the chattering classes and trying over my latte to decide on a policy for action. Even the chattering classes have a vote and pay for what is done or not done.
Posters almost without exception revel in argument about the validity of the science, computer models.

Are those of you saying the science is suss saying do nothing? Are those saying carbon trading is the answer, part of the answer?
The things I suspect. Carbon trading is a hoax partly to alleviate the minds of the simple, like me, to gain votes. Carbon taxing is little more than increasing revenue for the state. Whether either is a positive effect on climate is doubtful. So what to do do?

My washing used to accumulate the fallout from oil burning boats while living in a once cheap place to live on Sydney harbour. I learned to loath smoke stacks, coal, gas, or oil. Do we have to have them, I don't think so.
New industries have been the success of the western world for one hundred fifty years. Lets start a new one, the solar industry. We think coal gives us "comparative advantage" what then of our advantage in solar?
Supporting, dirty industry is bound to fail on one front or another eventually anyway.
I think it fair to suspect any science that supports an existing industry, do I drink too much coffee?
I have read of trials being carried out that electricity produced by solar is viable?
I have read that one hundred square Kms could produce Australia's electricity requirement. I know that individual house requirements can be greatly supplemented by solar.
Sounds like a viable "new" industry to me, what holds us back? vested interests, a perennial problem.
Whether the science on global warming is valid or not I now enjoy clean air and wonderful sunshine, for now I live in a rural environment, away from smoke stacks.
Lets move on.
fluff

I think Ray Evans would prefer to forget that the 'Hockey Stick' has been re-validated by other scientists/models and despite the christopher moncktons and the 'two macs' of this world who are still clinging to old arguments still stands.

Is there anyone out there who doesnt know that the IPA is funded by the mining/logging interests who stand to lose out financially with this whole shift?? So much for their belief in free markets and the opportunities the renewables sector holds - i guess thats why we are constantly losing our brightest scientists and technologies off shore.

Sulphur dioxide is an inadequate explanation for decline in global temperature between 1946 and 1975 - it is moreover unnecessary. It is better explained by decadal variations in the El Nino Southern Oscillations. There are cool La Nina periods of decades followed by decades of warm El Nino periods. These periods are characterised by an increase in the frequency and intensity of La Nina and El Nino respectively. The teleconnections between ENSO and global surface temperatures are extensively documented.

Decadal ENSO variability also explains why global surface temperatures have declined since 1998 and may continue to do so over to about the mid 2020's.