"Next time you hop into the supermarket for a loaf of bread or a juicy steak, you need to consider the damage you are doing to the continent, the planet and your children’s prospects on it, with your tiny economic signal."

"...your economic signal has to change and you will probably end up paying much the same for food, in real terms, as your Nan and Gramps used to. They, after all, had a food system that was fairly sustainable."

Julian, the problem with this sort of reasoning is that only a small number of conscientious people will do it while the masses blunder forth regardless. It won't work unless a large portion of the populace do it - in fact, the vast majority. Conscientious people might modify their tiny economic signals as much as they can, and then see absolutely no change in society or the people around them for their efforts. I know. I've been there. It is a very disillusioning experience.

Sure we should be doing this sort of thing, that is; just being a whole lot more frugal and sensible about our purchasing and consumption practices. But the more important thing we need to be doing is advocating a regime of sustainability, in which not only reduced per-capita consumption is important, but also stabilisation of population and maximised effort put into developing alternative energy sources and more efficient food supplies.

We need to be yelling this from the rooftops, writing to newspapers, getting on talk-back radio, boring it up our political reps and plugging away on forums like OLO!

Even if the vast majority of us did reduce or modify our consumption practices, we'd achieve just about nothing for as long as the population continues to rapidly grow. I know that you appreciate this point. But unfortunately it is not emphasised in this article. This and the overall sustainability strategy imperative are all-important in addressing climate change.

Anyway, apart from this omission, your expression of concern is most apt. Keep the articles coming on this forum.

Are we about to see the first large-scale feed-back loop come into operation to help maintain a stable climate? The large volumes of red dust blowing from inland Australia are derived from our agricultural and pastoral topsoils. As such, they are rich in nutrients, including phosphorous. Much of this dust will settle into the marine waters of the western Pacific and the increase in phosphorous should stimulate the growth of algae which in turn will consume more atmospheric CO2, much of which will eventually settle to the bottom of the ocean.
Maybe Gaia is alive and well, with the first of its self-regulating feed-back mechanisms about to come into play.

Well pardon me for living. Professor Cribb blames man 'at least in part if not completely' for the recent dust storms. More codswallop. Malthus lives, but will forever be disproved as the Earth we inhabit has resources limited only by our imagination. My original (but censored) letter to The Australian this morning, read: "Our entire economy is carbon-based. Our well-being is carbon based. We live and breathe it. In the words of Freeman Dyson 'The fundamental reason why carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is critically important to biology is that there is so little of it. A field of corn growing in full sunlight in the middle of the day uses up all of the carbon dioxide within a metre of the ground in about five minutes'. One could add, 'The reason why coal is critically important to our economy is that there is so much of it - it provides cheap and abundant power to allow the prosperity we need to cope with natural climate change'.
Yet 'carbon' has been declared a pollutant by our political masters in Canberra? The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and its bed-mates, Emissions Trading Schemes and Renewable Energy Targets, will do nothing to change the climate, but will severely impact on our economy. The letter to the editor from Neil Lawrence (WE Aust 26-27 Sept) stating that he and the Australian Coal Association support the introduction of an emissions trading scheme must sound alarm bells. Seems the arsonists are in charge of the fire brigade."

Professor Cribb should re-examine his case against humanity, and consult with some eminent professors such as Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Lance Endersbee to whom all Australians owe a debt of gratitude for standing firm with logic and reason against a whirlwind of Hollywood theatrics proclaiming the Chicken Little / Al Gore message of doom. No wonder suicide rates are so high.

"Two men looked through prison bars - one saw mud, the other, stars". Wish I knew who wrote that.

Regards
John McRobert

ps Any comments by anonymous correspondents will be treated with the contempt they deserve

So we should stop eating? Take another look at the topsoil loss stats you quote.. its all from the lessor developed countries.. there were substantial topsoil losses in Australia and America farming lands in the 1930s leading to major dust bowls.. these problems were overcome at the same time as yields were imporved dramatically.. If the losses are as serious as you say then we should get busy and work with the farmers of those areas, not studdenly stop buying food..

Julian you have mentioned that the supermarkets because of their size control the price of agricultural products, and Ludwig has correctly pointed out that there is not much an individual can do.
In that case should we not collectively urge the governmentto limit supermarkets to say 20% of market share? I understand that our supermarket duopoly control 80% of market share.

In a description of Sydney in the 1880s novel "The Boy Travellers in Australasia", such dust storms are common enough to be given a name: "Brickfielders".

Plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose?

In "The Simpsons", Lucy Lawless excused every plot hole and discontinuity in "Xena" with the blanket explanation: "A wizard did it."

Climate change has become the "wizard did it" for green ideologues determined to blame every natural phenomena on that most pernicious of beasts: humans.

"'Two men looked through prison bars - one saw mud, the other, stars'. Wish I knew who wrote that."

It was Oscar Wilde, John. He also wrote, "The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."

Wilde would have had a field day with the modern AGW crowd, who know the price or value of neither, but they will to their, and our, great cost.

I have no problems with the notion that we have some very severe environmental problems resulting from the way we have, and in some cases, still do, manage our farming systems, particularly in regard to overgrazing, land clearances, sustainability, water storage and delivery, etc. I do have a problem with the author’s rhetoric though.

"Australia, say the scientists, is in a "dust age"" – which scientists, Julian? What is the period of this "age"? Does it include the very wet 1970s, or does it include the 5,000-year history of iron oxide rich "dust" derived from the eastern arid lands on the Tasman seabed floor, which includes 4,850 years without any impact from European-style farming practices? Most of the dust was sourced from unconsolidated sediments washed down by monsoonal-derived rains into the lower Lake Eyre and Darling River basins.

"These compel many of them to take unwise decisions to overstock or overcrop, and when the drought comes, the country blows". A prejudiced stereotypic opinion that is only partly true. Julian, take a look at the NASA satellite image of the dust storm. The point sources of dust are very clear and less than 15% are derived from cropping lands - those lands would most likely be fallow and not overcropped. The remainder of the point sources are located in outback rangelands or wilderness country. In the fortnight before the dust storm I travelled over 5,000km through this country, passing by or through over 200 grazing properties. Of those 200 or so I saw only three that could be described as degraded or severely degraded; many of the properties had been destocked because of the prior drought and were now showing signs of good recovery after last summer and autumn's rains. Of those properties with reduced stock – of those I saw all (bar one property) the stock was in excellent condition and the land cover in good health given the length of the drought.

"The scientists I speak to say there is a clear link between human CO2 emissions and large-scale weather patterns like El Niño . . ." continued

– again, which scientists Julian, or don't they wish to be named. I know, and I suspect you do too, that the real causes of the problems of which you speak about the loss of dwindling farming lands is in fact a result of ignorance of the processes of natural systems as well as the lack of stewardship in sustaining farming lands resulting from, in part, absentee landlordism as well as the economic pressures of which you speak. Yet, as a science communicator you fail to mention just what this clear link is between human CO2 emissions and large scale weather patterns. You need to explain how reducing human CO2 emissions (the biggest reduction I can find after years of research is that if a globally applied ETS actually works it will reduce CO2 levels by "several" ppm). Just how does reducing CO2 by "several" ppm going to change anything Julian, or do you have some unreferenced knowledge that it will be much greater than "several"? Either way, good stewardship, adaptation and greater efficiency seem to better options in the reality that is the physical world.

"Now I’m not trying to make anyone feel bad here . . . there are no "quick fixes" other than for humanity to moderate its diet." Yes you were, and you will no doubt moderate your diet by leading by example. While your meat consumption is relatively easy to reduce or eliminate I cannot see how you, or those people we export to, will get by without our cropped farm produce. As for "no quick fixes" there are plenty - visit any landcare or farming group and just see what has been achieved by these farmers and stakeholders in just the last decade or less (even during a severe drought): natural regeneration; reduced soil salinities; alley farming; tree planting; wind breaks; no-till farming; stubble retention; gully restoration; bore tapping; water pipelines, etc. There is still a long way to go of course and it is not helped by your unsubstantiated and prejudicial commentary.

I wonder what the atmospheric carbon levels were 70 years ago when we had the last dust storm of this size?

Since the last comparable dust storm 70 years ago occurred without the benefit of all the climate change problems pointed out by the current crop of ideologues, I have a very hard time understanding the correlation between climate change and dust storms.

Is the implication here that Mars underwent climate change? If so, when and who caused it? If no one caused it could it have been a natural phenomena?

I don't argue with the idea that we really need to be doing something about all the pollution coming from the smoke stacks of our coal plants and cars but Julian, lumping any atmospheric anomaly under the heading of "caused by climate change" really destroys your credibility .

I wondered how long it would be before someone popped up crying "it's Global Warming, beware, beware!"

The Bureau of Meteorology records show that in recent years, Sydney was also affected by dust storms in April 1994, September 1968, December 1957, January 1942 and October 2002. The 1942 storm reduced visibility at Sydney airport to 500 metres, according to the BoM web site.

They also point out that these phenomena are not isolated incidents, nor are they unique to the 21st century and its fixation with AGW

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/c20thc/storm5.shtml

"In some towns, "balls of fire" were reported. At Boort in central Victoria they reportedly fell into paddocks and streets, with showers of sparks as they struck the ground. In Chiltern and Deniliquin the balls were blamed for setting fire to buildings. A possible explanation is that fast-moving blowing dust particles generated static electricity, which ignited organic matter carried along with the dust. The experience must have been truly frightening: the sky a lurid red, a hot gale blowing, dust thick enough for almost total darkness, and balls of fire to add to the terror."

It doesn't bear thinking, how the AGW fear-mongers would treat similar events today. They'd generate enough panic to bring down the government.

Our forebears seem to have handled the whole thing with considerably greater aplomb.

http://www.ernmphotography.com/Pages/Ball_Lightning/Nov1902Pages/NewsClip1.html

Eventually, it will have to dawn on us that a changing climate is a normal part of our life, and the clear choice is to adapt to each change, rather than pretend we can control it.

Last time I looked, we couldn't predict accurately whether it will rain next Saturday.

Especially in the cricket season.

Julian,
the comments about carbon appear to be very unscientific.

if they are your comments, I wonder what sort of people you have been associating with since your time in Western Australia?

regards

Ron Manners www.mannkal.org

Hmm, I think you really do need to visit a farm to open you eyes. Contrary to what you wrote, farmers do as much as they can with the currently available scientific knowledge to prevent the degradation of their land. This reason for this is quite simple, the land is their lively hood: without healthy land they can't grow crops or animals. This is why BILLIONS of dollars worth of research has been invested into improving soils and fertility.

By-the-way: I remember reading years ago that part of the reason why fish stocks have decreased is due to farmers improving their land. The connection between fish and farming is that improved farming practices have reduced the number of naturally occurring dust storms. Regular dust storms used to take iron particle out to sea and fertilize the ocean's plankton. Apparently iron is a required mineral for the growth of plankton- a slight increase in iron greatly increases the amount of plankton. Indeed I believe there are recent start-up companies that plan to spread iron dust over the sea to increase fish stocks. (I'll see if I can find you web-links about this. Admittedly, I must be honest and say that it was years ago that I read this- the science may have change since then)

Continuing from my last comment: found some links- not the same articles that I read years ago but they give a similar story:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0815oceancarbon.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1014

Also found a link to a company that plans to spread iron-dust over the oceans to improve the biological activity:

http://www.planktos-science.com/

The author’s article rests on differences between the market price and the asserted:
a) ‘real cost’, and
b) fair price.

But these assertions raise more problems than they solve.

The fair price is the difference between what the farmers receive, and what the author thinks the farmers should receive. As the author blames “the supermarkets” for “screwing” the farmers, he implies is the fair price is more than the market price. But the author does not provide, and is unable to provide, any way to calculate what this supposed fair price should be in any given case. As he himself points out, the source of the economic signals that give rise to the fair price do not originate with the supermarkets, but with the consumers. As the supermarkets are themselves in competition with each other, it is not clear that any of them either could or should pay any price over the market price.

The ‘real cost’ refers to damage to the environment that is not accounted for in the market price. This can be conceived in terms of damage to the environment apart from human utility; or damage to human utility such as future use value not taken into account in the market price.

But if we took all the humans away, there would be no value in the environment to speak of. There is no such thing as values over and above human values; or who presumes to speak for God as against his fellow humans’ lives? Talk of such values can only ever be a cipher for one human being’s ambition to wield arbitrary power over another; such as Ludwig’s dreams of total power and radically curtailing the human population.

In terms of utility, how can these “real costs” be known? We can assess them directly, by looking at such photos. But that does not answer the questions in issue, which are, how are buyers to know the “real cost” price they should be paying to balance current consumption against future needs? Or how could the price mechanism ever be replaced without mass starvation *and* environmental devastation?

The problem with the author’s, and with Malthus’s, God’s-eye view, is that this is not the perspective in which the decisions are being made. We are not studying atoms or rocks, but human beings, whose actions are purposeful. The decisions are made by individuals assessing the marginal utility of individual transactions. No-one is given to decide at the species level. Extrapolations of positive data are not valid, as Malthus and Ehrlich have inadvertently proven.

The author gives no reason to assume that decisions pretending to be at the species level, and without benefit of economic calculation, would be better than the current problem; and there is more than enough reason to think they would be worse in both economic and ecological terms.

Pericles,
I'm surprised, as you usually make such sense.
One can always take a relativistic view of crises--what ya gonna do?
One can always cite precedent--man, this is nothin!
The climate is fu-- up anyway.
Are you kidding?
Personally, I think it is too late for us to substantially alter the course of events, but we have a moral obligation to try! It's not just the human party that's been spoiled; humanity will survive while we drive other species to extinction. You can vacillate on global warming (it's a big club), but species extinction is irrefutable, and habitat destruction is visible from space. Humanity is a global cancer, yet We're the thinkers down here. The evidence of human depredation is irrefutable, and all you can say is, "that a changing climate is a normal part of our life, and the clear choice is to adapt to each change, rather than pretend we can control it."
This global warming is not a normal part of anybody or anything's life; global warming, or cooling, hitherto, has been a geological event, in terms of chronology, imperceptible within the average organism's lifespan. We are faced with the probability, indeed irrefutable evidence, that this abbreviated event was caused by us! And if we are not prepared to rouse ourselves from the couch and make a few adjustments to our collective state of sloth, then we deserve to go the way of the innocent species that precede us.
But this is an emotive issue, isn't it, and, I do apologise, beneath the dignity of a philosopher.

So why did Julian write this bit of purile pap, after all he is a science communicator, & could hardly have done any worse.

Well obviously he was told, by his superiors to do so, to demonstrate his solidarity with his fellow academics. After all they are bringing in lots of dollars, in research grants.

Also obviously, he did not like this instruction. So, either he disagrees with AGW, & wrote this dreadful bit, to show his disdane for the instruction, & the topic, or just because he takes instruction poorly.

I think it must be the former, as it is so bad, it must have convinced quite a few people that those who advocate AGW are a bunch of dills.

The more unequal rights for women we release, the drier the world’s grasslands and grainbelts are going to get and the more dust storms we will have.

Why?

Beacuse the more rights they have the more children they will have and its children who grow into humans who cause human caused global climate change.

That pollutitians like Rudd have hijacked the women's rights movement as an easy way to get votes and boost a nappies and GST-immigrants economy. This is less a measure of their political & fiscal skill and more a measure of the fact that they are evil trolls in $2000 suits who do not give a sh$t about the fragile landscape in which we all live and upon which we all depend for our spiritual wellbeing.

History will judge Reudd very harshly despite his self serving media spin of innocence. The man is damned, for the continent will rebound after the wars that must come from global resource conflict, but Rudd's legacy will surely NOT. The foolish notion of climate change, which is palpably only relative to an insignificant species like humans, is nothing more than an excuse for men to have sex by allowing women to have all the children they want so the women can fastrack themselves onto easy street and economists & polluticians can count more heads: bigger turnovers and bigger profits.

No one in our political system has the balls to do anything to stop the degradation of our continent until our constitution is changed to give the very land itself an independent seat in parliament to uphold its rights. In the meantime rivers, oceans, skies and soil fertility are just like aboriginals: we will keep saying sorry till they are all gone and we get all the bloody sex we are after.

Remember KAEP, bears can smell the menstruation, too!

You really have a problem with women, don't you?

You really have a problem with women, don't you?

NO I do not.

To explain:

I am an avid gardner and when it rains I go inside and leave the garden to stay dry and cozy.

Now all the flowers, of both genders, don't yell and moan that I hate them because I leave. They know i'll be back to tend.

I suppose there will be the odd WEED who raises the chant, "You really have a problem with female flowers, don't you?

There will always be weeds, but its nice to know you can dig THEM with their funny names, UP.

Well said Julian. Not everyone who reads here is a dedicated denialist, instant expert or curmudgeon.

I find Julian's hysteria about global warming a complete load of tish.

I further recall 1983, I had been in Australia for less than a month, when all of a sudden Melbourne was engulfed by a huge dust storm, followed by the Ash Wednesday fires and then torrential rains.

I cannot be bothered talking with all these namby-pamby prophets of doom.

Someone tell Julian that “meteorological phenomenon” happens and nothing he can do or suggest others do will alter that.

And promoting lies by pretending this is something to do with AGW is the same as telling children there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.

John McRoberts "Two men looked through prison bars - one saw mud, the other, stars". Wish I knew who wrote that.”

I thought it might be Oscar Wilde, from the Ballard of Reading Goal but that appears not so.

It is ascribed to be by “anon”, who is famous for many other quotes.

Just as individual weight is a function, predominately, of the amount one sticks in ones mouth, collectively, our combined community weight and thus, the need for food is a function of how much we are eating multiplied by how many there are to feed.

Perhaps, addressing the numbers of mouths to feed is a better course of action than telling people what not to eat.

“Now I’m not trying to make anyone feel bad here.”

I don’t feel bad at all…

I went on a guilt trip once but got off at the first rest break, leaving all the old farts and fuddy-duddys to suffer one another’s company in their collective gloom

- and doubtless Julian would have been the tour guide on that trip.

Why, thank you Squeers. What a nice thing to say.

>>Pericles, I'm surprised, as you usually make such sense.<<

The same may be said about your goodself.

I particularly liked a comment you made on the other AGW thread...

>>Way too big an issue for our flatulent electorates!<<

So true! No election will ever be won by a promise to punish us all.

And this was insightful, too.

>>Humanity is a global cancer<<

Verily, we are a particularly selfish animal.

If you were to plot the span of humankind's existence on this planet on two timelines, one that said "this is how long we'll survive if we go on as we are" and one that says "this is how long we will survive if we all cooperate to combat global warming", I wonder how different they would be.

Because it really is a lifestyle issue, isn't it?

Of course, there are millions of people around the world - perhaps you are one of them - who would gladly sacrifice their present urban lifestyle, and instead live a subsistence existence on a small, self-sufficient plot of land.

I am also aware of billions of people around the world, who would gladly sacrifice their present lifestyle of a subsistence existence on a small plot of land, for a crack at the urban lifestyle, complete with 4WD, plasma TV and air conditioning.

Should we simply swap places, do you think?

You also pinpoint the dilemma this presents.

>>Personally, I think it is too late for us to substantially alter the course of events, but we have a moral obligation to try!<<

Does our moral obligation extend to actively preventing anyone else from enjoying the benefits that our part of the world has reaped from, say, the industrial revolution onwards?

Your ability to skewer the key issue is admirable.

>>But this is an emotive issue, isn't it, and, I do apologise, beneath the dignity of a philosopher.<<

It is most certainly an emotive issue.

And the solutions, if there are any, will come from down-to-earth pragmatists, rather than philosophers.

nwick has the right of it; allowing just two supermarket chains to control 80% of the market is stupid. Farmers have been forced into the position of price takers, instead of makers.
When in the name of neoliberal ideology, NSW deregulated the dairy industry, farmgate prices for milk were cut by half, and the price of milk to consumers went up. The only winners? Shareholders in Woollies and Coles.
In 1991 I was selling crossbred fresian/angus steers to Kempsey abattoir for 240 cents a kilo. A few months ago on a trip to Rockhampton (beef capital of Australia) the market report was: steers, 240 cents a kilo.
Can anyone justify the tar and cement covering river flats and deltas?
It has been suggested that if everyone on the planet were to enjoy the standard of living of the 'average' American, we would need the resources of 5 planets. We could probably get away with just one, if we just stopped wasting the resources we use.
Good article Julian, keep up the good work.

Grim,
my wife's family are cattle farmers in Biloela. It's refreshing to hear someone from the bush who's not a CC denier.
You make a good point about wasting the resources we 'have'.
In defence of cities, the capitals at least were built when no one had an inkling we'd ever want for arable land again. And of course if capitalism didn't demand constant growth, driven by population growth and its concomitant infrastructure, indeed if we weren't all driven to accumulate wealth and trappings way way beyond our needs, we wouldn't be in this fix. I have to say too that I've seen some profligate farming practices in my time.
Of course the pragmatists out there recommend steady as she goes. Human greed and callousness got us into this mess and it can get us out of it--pull the ladder up!
Pragmatism is apparently the modern virtue, while ethics, moderation and compassion are the far flung dreamy notions of ideologues.

Thanks for the inane lifestyles alternatives, Pericles .... gee, I dunno?
And how many more times must we hear the mantra about the boon of the industrial revolution? In tandem with capitalism it has lifted millions out of poverty goes the refrain. It has also created millions more with its unsustainable excess, and is responsible for where the planet is today, where the contrast between the wealthy and the destitute, between opulence and suffering (not just human suffering), has never been greater. Neither are the wealthy and destitute separate trajectories--one feeds off the offer! Guess which!
The whole monster is driven by pragmatism, by hand to mouth excess, without a pang of conscience or thought for sustainability.
Indeed, most of us are so hardened to it all that I sound like a loony!
No,I don't dream of a utopia, but our dystopia is a compelling reality.

You know Squeers, it must be most frustrating for you to be unable to change the past to suit your idealism.

>>In tandem with capitalism [the industrial revolution] lifted millions out of poverty goes the refrain. It has also created millions more with its unsustainable excess, and is responsible for where the planet is today, where the contrast between the wealthy and the destitute, between opulence and suffering (not just human suffering), has never been greater<<

Given what you know about human nature, and the instincts that drive us (think Maslow for a moment), do you believe that it was ever possible to avoid the industrial revolution?

Given also what you know about industrial revolution history - think dark satanic mills for a moment - do you think it was possible to avoid the social impact that it brought with it?

I guess you have already answered.

>>The whole monster is driven by pragmatism, by hand to mouth excess, without a pang of conscience or thought for sustainability.<<

But the secret sauce of pragmatism is availalable to all, Squeers, and is practised by all.

Especially the poor, who are situationally incapable of whiling away their days, philosophising about what might have been, if only the Luddites had won.

>>Pragmatism is apparently the modern virtue, while ethics, moderation and compassion are the far flung dreamy notions of ideologues.<<

It is most interesting that you assume that pragmatism and ethics are incompatible, as are pragmatism and moderation, and pragmatism and compassion.

It is entirely possible to be ethical, moderate and compassionate, you know, and still retain an essential pragmatism about what is achievable. Dreaming of a Utopia - or living in fear of a dystopia - is hardly a constructive state of mind.

Reality is something that most of us have to come to terms with, since we are generally unable to alter it to fit "the far flung dreamy notions of ideologues."

I may agree with your general diagnosis.

But wishing that Hargreaves had not invented the spinning jenny, doesn't actually solve anything.

Pericles,
idealism is precisely the charge I don't want to attract. I don't have my head in the clouds, but it's not buried in the sand either.
Pragmatism is certainly a very rubbery term.
No, it wasn't possible, or even desirable, to avoid the industrial revolution; but I don't see why we should continue along the same disastrous path now that we are fully acquainted with the consequences.
Your allusions to human drives are true enough, and one need go no further than Freud, but these instincts are exacerbated by a system that exploits them. I'm not so defeatist that I think humanity irredeemable; surely civilisation might temper the human drives as well foment them? My central argument, not just in this thread, is that ethics should inform pragmatism--as some of its theorists intended! As you say, "It is entirely possible to be ethical, moderate and compassionate ... and still retain an essential pragmatism about what is achievable"; but can you illustrate, with an instance of this kind of ethical pragmatism at work in the capitalist sphere today?
It's not just ethics that's lacking, but higher thought in general, which rarely gets taken up, but is watered-down or defeated by our "democratic" institutions, which are driven and steered by a predominantly conservative electorate--a middle class bent on (and manipulated into) maintaining the status quo and all its trappings, whatever the cost. So how do we get higher thought, including ethics, passed by the people when it might mean a shrinkage of their petty empires?
BTW, I give you tacit credit for a more reasonable stance than what might be apparent or implied when I take a few sentences to task; similarly, my own thinking on the matter is, I hope, more cogent than I can depict it to be via these abbreviated exchanges.