Global warming: Are You For It Or Against It?

[OlderAndWiser]

This is a topic which certainly gets people heated up. :) Those who accept the premise of global warming get very angry if you dare to question the premise; they act as if you are trying to take away their religion. When you ask them why they believe global warming is a real phenomenon, they repeat the mantra that "all" scientists agree that global warming is real. They can't name the scientists and they can't tell you what evidence leads to that conclusion, but they seem to be insulted if you suggest that they are not thinking for themselves.

"The sky is falling," they shout, "and their is no time for discussion! We need to stop doing everything that creates greenhouse gases, outlaw cars, and mandate bicycle travel," some suggest. Notice, however, that the head cheerleader for the theory - Al Gore - routinely travels by airplane. Shorty after the release of "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore’s home energy consumption had increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006, approximately 20 times more than the average household. When Gore travels to give a speech on global warming, he and his entourage arrive in Lincoln Continentals and SUV's.

Liberals have been opposed to the disparity in lifestyle between first world and third world countries for decades. They strongly suggest that all of our technological accomplishments should cause us great shame and we should repent our evil ways. The global warming theory certainly gives the Social Justice Warriors a bottomless souirce of self-righteousness and, they believe, the ammunition to make Western society bend to their will.

Those who oppose the concept of global warming are not too interested in looking at the evidence, either. They dismiss the proponents as environmental wackos and self-proclaimed do-gooders and Al Gore is the poster child for their attack. They latch on to a report that some data was altered by a UK climatologist to support the theory of global warming. Too many of them have the let's-bury-our-heads-in-the-sand mentality. They are not content to attack the theory but insist on attacking the messenger and thereby lessen their own credibility.

I am a natural skeptic but I have not reached any firm conclusions on this topic. There are truths that are inconvenient for the global warming crowd.

1. You might have heard that 97% of climate scientists agree the world is warming and people are the cause. The 97% figure comes from a paper by social scientist John Cook at the University of Queensland and colleagues, who quantified this by analyzing the abstracts of scientific papers on climate change. Cook estimated 97% of the abstracts supported the idea that recent climate change is man-made. That is like saying that 90% of American voters oppose Trump because 90% of the news article about him are negative.

2. Scientists do not have a job if there is no money to support their research. Most funding for scientific research comes from government sources. Scientists understand that scientific "facts" can be used to advance political agendas. A call to alarm on a particular topic generally results in more research funds bejing made available than of scientists report that "all is quiet along the Western front." If you simply and absolutely deny that any scientist anywhere wouold distort data for personal gain, you are naive.

3. Antarctica is colder, and has more ice, now than at any time within our recorded history. How can this be?

4. When global temperature is calculated, it is based on temperature recording stations around the world. There are only 8 temperature recording stations in Antarctica!

5. Approximately 3/4 of all temperature recording stations around the globe are located between latitudes 30 and 60 degrees north. How does that present us with a balanced picture of what is happening on our earth?

6. What is the ideal temperature for our planet?

7. The earth's climate has experienced cyclical changes long before the proliferation of industry. Why should we not believe that we are experiencing another natural climate change?

8. When you respond to any global warming challenge with anger, you do not force people to cower and accept your conclusions; you simply give them an excuse to reject your message and recognizing that does not require great perceptiveness. Knowing that simple facet of human behavior, why do global warming proponents continue to respond with anger?

9. When the leading proponent of the global warming theory lives a life filled with hypocrisy, why should people believe what he says when he acts as if he himself does not believe it?

This is one more example of an issue which should be discussed in factual terms but is so infused with partisan politics that is will never receive a rational and unemotional exposition. If our survival truly does "hang in the balance," doesn't it deserve a better effort than what it has received so far?

[cth96190]

The evidence shows that the Earth has been going through temperature cycles since it had an atmosphere.
Not only is there no evidence to support so-called global warming, the evidence shows that the Earth was much warmer during recent history.
During what is referred to as the Mediaeval warm period, the level of the Earth's oceans was much higher. The evidence shows that although it is called the Mediaeval warm period, it began much earlier than that.
For example, the port of ancient Rome, Portus, is now four kilometres from the Mediterranean Sea. The ground did not rise. The water receded, which can be caused only by polar ice coverage increasing.
In Wales there is a famous castle that has a stone harbour. That castle is now kilometres away from the ocean.
A thousand years ago there was a thriving Viking colony in Iceland, which had villages and grew crops on land that is now beneath the ice.
So-called global warming is a deliberate lie. It is a ploy that is being pushed to create a pretext for a taxation system that will fund a planned world government. See infowars. com for details about that.
What 'evidence' has been presented in support of global warming has been proven to be fraudulent. See the link below for information about what has become known as Climategate.
www.telegraph.co.uk/.../...-of-our-generation.html

[OlderAndWiser]

I think you are close to the truth.

[SunsetRose]

"Heated up"- I see what you did there haha. I do think that climate change is happening but I'm not sure if humans are entirely to blame. The only question I think I can answer is #3- Antarctica is colder and has more ice but that is because climate change causes the water cycle to speed up. The result is that there is more flooding AND more droughts, depending on what location we're talking about. That's about all I remember from my environmental science class haha

[Theo27]

Yeah you're right. I think that humans are not entirely to blame, since out planet has known various cycles like this before. Scientists studying polar ice can actually find out the phases of global warming. There are phases like this cyclically, and I think it's just a way for the Earth to regulate itself.

[steveguitar]

I do believe that humans are making an impact on the environment, and I do think that global warming is increased by humans. Every other time that there was a massive climate change, it happened very slowely, over hundreds or thousands of years, and maybe more than that.

I live in Canada, in southern Ontario. My father grew up here also. There was a fairly big snowstorm that happened in he states this year, near the whitehouse area. Newscasters were going crazy, but to us Canadians, we have seen much worse. I asked my father what the weather was like when be was a kid during the winter. He said that they used to get about three snowstorms a year that were worse than that one in he USA. My father was born in 1950, and we don't get weather like that anymore. the temperature, quick change in weather, they are all due to humans influence. Otherwise it would be much slower

This year it was a very warm winter, we had a few very cold nights and a few snowfalls, but nothing crazy. We evwn had a few days where we thought winter was over and spring was coming. We barely get anything nowadays. when I was a kid at least we would get a snow day or two a year, where school busses were cancelled and kids got to stay home. I haven't heard the words "snow day" uttered in years. And that's not because I don't go to school anymore. The last 10+ years have been very odd weather wise. I feel like I have seen the weather change within my lifetime. Temperatures are hotter than they were when I was a kid. Bugs are moving to parts of the world that have never seen those kind of bugs before there before. Many geese didn't fly South this winter, they stayed here. Some whales didn't migrate this year, it wasn't cold enough, so they stayed where they were for the summer. I remember when I was a kid that people said there was a hole in the ozone layer, I do t remember exactly where it is or whatever, but it was caused by pollution.

There are so many indicators, but I will say that most politically right wing minded people don't care about stuff like that. But in reality, they live for themselves and do money. They are what I like to call 'lead heads'. They are stuck in the frame of mind that humans can do whatever they want without it effecting anything. They believe anything that is researched, and they continually make calls that destroy the earth rather than help it. They like research that they pay for, because they know the result they want before they pay for it.

[OlderAndWiser]

In reality, most left wing people live for themselves and power. They are stuck in the frame of mind that they are smarter than right wingers and should be able to tell them what to do. They believe anything that it told to them by a person who has apparent authority and they continually make calls to destroy things that otherwise benefit people. They automatically accept any criticism issued by a Democrat president because they seem to be motivated by self-loathing.

[steveguitar]

It's funny hat you say that most left wing people live for themselves and power. I see my prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, is helping women in Canada, he is helping with the refugee crisis, he has bettered relations with the USA, compared to the shitty former right wing prime minister Stephen harper that worsened relationships all over the world. He didn't help anything with he environment, in fact he did many things to worsen it. He didn't do anything to help Canada's energy consumption.

Then I look as the USA, and I see a right wing Donald "arrogant" trump saying he wants to erect a wall, he wants to stop immigration from countries that have terrorists, he dosnt want to help refugees.

I see great songwriters like Jack Johnson, Neil Young, as people like that, playing shows to help farmers, Jack Johnson created the Kokua foundation. His tour is as energy efficient as possible. His home studio is solar powered. Yes he is a left wing voter, even though he never said it.

[OlderAndWiser]

What wonderful people! And right wing people are all such monsters! If only we could be filled with so much love (except left wingers don't seem to have much love or tolerance when a right wing person disagrees with you.)

[steveguitar]

I never said they were all monsters, but many of them certainly are. And it isn't just about disagreeing, it's really about educating. breaking right wingers out if their self supporting state of mind. trying to show them that the world, it's people, the oceans, the animals, the bugs, the atmosphere, can't take what we are doing to them. it can't last. yes, the environment can change on it's own, but it has never in it's history changed the way it has changed since man has been measuring and researching it. we need to change our ways, be more conscious about everything. stop hating other people, stop doing things that harm the environment, find way to use the free energy from the sun rather than oil from the earth. plant more trees, get rid of fast food. recycle more. it's so easy, but money and governments make it so hard. then you have right winged governments that make no contribution to helping the environment or the mass population that doesn't have a lot of money.

[steveguitar]

you can't progress and change, when there are a massive amount of people holding progression back, or worsening the odds of success

[OlderAndWiser]

SO you are right and they are wrong. That is a very enlightened attitude. . . not!

[steveguitar]

These are things you can see everyday. The thing is thatany right wingers are in denial. They will argue all their lives that humans do not change the environment or hurt their health, but there is no way in hell that a right winger would wrap their mouth around a running cars exhaust pipe and breath in. Anything we do on this planet, stays in this planet. Just because smoke sems to dissipate, and dissappear, it doesn't mean that the molecules have gone. They are still present. And they destroy, he good gassss like oxygen and water. And this argument just goes to prove what I already think, you can't change a right wingers mind, you can't educate them, they don't listen and they ignore anything outside of their own lives. They don't accept change and they don't believe anything bad happens, and they don't want to help anybody except themselves and the small group of people they love.

[OlderAndWiser]

If only everyone would realize how right you are and all the stupid right wingers would renounce their stupid ways!

[mlts70]

I totally disagree. There actually is a concept of someone knowing more than another person. It is not elitism. That is just a silly justification given by people who don't want to face reality. Liberals tend to be more knowledgeable than conservatives. You can look it up. Liberals do not reject science as so many conservatives do.

[steveguitar]

@mlts70 thanks

[AmericanPoet]

So I entered this MyTake already defensive but I admit you did a fantastic job. I too am a skeptic of any subject that requires continual funding to sustain itself. Self preservation is a fundamental human driver so as a skeptic I find it hard to believe people who have a financial interest in the game.

Especially when people like Gore and Pachauri lead the charge yet profit from companies who benefit from their "science". I am a conservationist so of course the environment is important to me, a symbiotic relationship. When the liberal's answer is to tax me to "save the planet"... that's pure BS. Why don't these tax payer funded scientists tell me how man will survive when (not if) the climate has a dramatic change. Since the 60s the "green police" have said an ice age is coming, then it was a greenhouse effect, then it was the ozone hole, then it was global warming... now they finally perfected the story and call it climate change.

The world will change as it has since it's existence. To believe that we have ANY ability to change that is lunacy. We have the ability to minimize our impact and a responsibility to conserve... not to be fleeced by politicians.

[OlderAndWiser]

You have stated the point most eloquently.

[Spiorad_Aisce]

I don't know about all the facts and figures but I do feel the climate is different to when I was younger. Is it this "Global Warming" or some other environmental factors. Enviromental issues do have an impact on jobs etc but we live in an age of where these talks go as follows.
(Insert hot social topic) discussion
Person A:- Ignorant Asshole
Person B:- F*** Off
So I think we should go and ask someone sensible, I read an excellent take from an 13 year old earlier on who I can't tag as I am level one or link her take but basically she showed two scenarios of how to deal with people so I will call first exchange scenario A and now I want to look scenario B.
Person A : I have concern about (insert issues) and I think they may have been caused by (insert factors)
Person B : I understand your concerns but any changes to (insert factors) have big knockon (insert effects) on other (insert extra issues)
Person A: Okay we need to discuss the concerns of my issues to see if (1) They exist? (2) If they do, what is causing them? (3) Agree one and two (4) Look at changes that will minimise the effects that concern person A with minimising impact on person B's factors (5) Big complicated word spelt C-O-M-P-R-0-M-I-S-E
Person B: Agreed, I will get a mediator to help us out.

[26ukdude]

When experts present facts, experts from different organizations "nearly" all saying the same thing, that the earth is warming, then I tend to believe them...

When I see my own town inundated by over a foot of rain in 24 hours (storm desmond cumbria 2015), and "1 in 100" year events occuring twice a decade, and people in their 90's who have lived in the region since the 1920's saying this is all new, I tend to believe what my eyes see, and what people with far more life experience tell me.

When I speak to climbers and mountaineers (there are a lot where I live) who say conditions haven't been as safe in the past decade or two because of lack of stability in ice gullys and snow conditions, the dozens of ski resorts in Europe pushing their summer agenda because of a shortening season, the villages back in my home county who are flooding more frequently because of sea level rise - when its happening all around me, I tend to believe it. Some of us are allready being affected by it... but I guess its upto you to believe it or not.

4.bp.blogspot.com/.../cartoon.jpg

[talloak]

The question is like asking if you're for or against gravity. You can claim that gravity is a hoax but that won't save you from falling off a cliff. Global temperatures are a matter of public record. You can see the data and measure the increase in data for yourself if you like. But of course facts are irrelevant - only opinion matters in questions of science! You refuse to look at the data. Or you insist that all thermometers around the world are all universally wrong by exactly the same values. Or that tens of thousands of scientists and technicians are united in a grand conspiracy to alter the data to annoy conservatives.

People who do not grasp science are in no position to critique it. You love science when it makes you a profit and then reject any part of that very same science if you think it will affect your pocketbook. Your image of an ostrich with his head in the sand is so perfectly ironic considering your thinking! Your pocketbook is the thing that you should be worried about since you care so little for the Earth. Global warming is going to cause trillions of dollars of damage and that's going to seriously raise your taxes and mine. I would think that this aspect of global warming would concern you even if mass extinctions did not.

[OlderAndWiser]

I do not respect any opinion which relies primarily on name calling.

[talloak]

What name calling is that?

[talloak]

When you lack intelligent response you simply dismiss opposition with a dishonest reason? Or do you find the term "conservative" offensive?

[OlderAndWiser]

"But of course facts are irrelevant. . . You refuse to look at the data. . . you insist that all thermometers around the world are all universally wrong. . . Your image of an ostrich with his head in the sand is so perfectly ironic considering your thinking!"

Liberals love to proclaim that they are full of love, compassion, and tolerance and conservatives are filled with hate, apathy, and intolerance. Don't believe what they say, just watch what they do when you disagree with them!

[talloak]

I'm still looking for the name calling in your examples. What I wrote describes your tactics. "they act as if you are trying to take away their religion", "The sky is falling!" "We need to stop doing everything that creates greenhouse gases, outlaw cars, and mandate bicycle travel", "The global warming theory certainly gives the Social Justice Warriors a bottomless source of self-righteousness and, they believe, the ammunition to make Western society bend to their will". These are examples of what you consider intelligent discourse and openness to discussion?

As a scientist, I understand the science of climate change very well, although I'm not a climatologist myself. I would be happy to explain it to you at whatever level you like. I can reconcile each of your points for the science and non-science in them if you are being honest about being open to such things. My experience talking to deniers so far is that they have no interest in explanations or understanding.

[talloak]

We react so strongly not just because non-scientists are telling us complete nonsense about how science works. This is not merely a matter of who's right and who's wrong. This is a matter of life and death. A variety of people in the employment of the oil companies spread deliberate misinformation to confuse the public and get them to hesitate. And this inaction is KILLING PEOPLE by the tens of thousands each year. The last time this kind of climate change happened on Earth, a large percentage of all species disappeared forever. How is that for a real life example of "the sky is falling"? Just the remote possibility that this could be true should inspire any sane person to take it seriously. Instead the spokespeople of the energy industry in Congress say that certainty has to exceed 100% before they will even allow discussion about it (certainty about climate change is already about 100%). How much will it take and how many lives lost before you take it seriously?

[OlderAndWiser]

Temperatures warmed roughly 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit (0.85 degrees Celsius) from 1880 to 2012. This has killed tens of thousands of people each year?

[talloak]

Sorry for the delay. Yes, such seemingly small changes have radical affects. It's not the air temperature that matters. Almost all of the heat that is getting trapped by CO2 goes into the oceans. Ocean temperatures determine precipitation and storms. Mega-storms kill tens of thousands of people. "Storms of the century" now occur every few years. The "storm of the millenium" in the Philippines in 2013 killed over 6000 people alone. Wind speeds reached 200 mph for the first time. That exceeds category 5, the maximum hurricane size. If such a storm hit a very populated area, the death toll could get into the hundreds of thousands or higher. The real death tolls will begin when shifting rainfall patterns create mega-famines. If, for example, the Indian monsoons are shifted far enough north by increasing temperatures, there simply would not enough food to grown in the world to prevent massive starvation (and huge price hikes for those who can afford food).

[talloak]

For perspective, think of what a 1.5 degree temperature change does to you. Your ability to function will be significantly compromised. A 3 degree increase and you will be bedridden. A sustained 4 degree temperature increase will kill you. Complex systems like higher animals or the world's ecologies don't tolerate even small change well. They cannot tolerate big changes at all. Scientists don't know precisely what the breaking points are for temperature. But is it really worth finding out by playing Russian roulette with the whole world?

[thorthorley]

I think global warming has become misconstrued by politics and radicals who dont completely understand the concept. Global warming should only be based upon scientific facts and not to be used with pointless arguments such as Al Gore driving a combustion engine car. Its irrelevant and doesn't get to the point of actual facts of global warming.

And even if global warming wasn't the case there are still many reasons to make a change anyway. Air pollution, running out of oil, the need for alternative power sources and general technological development are all reasons to make a change anyway even if global warming isn't the case.

[OlderAndWiser]

The point of talking about Al Gore's "carbon footprint" is that he acts as if he doesn't believe what he says, so it makes us question his credibility. . . and his motivations.

[Anonymous]

I guess the thing that makes me skeptical about global warming is the utter failure of the models to predict what has happened over the past 30 years. I always thought if you come up with a scientific theory and make a prediction and it doesn't happen, you need to change the theory. They seem to be trying to change the data instead.

I don't know who is right but it sure doesn't inspire confidence.

[OlderAndWiser]

I understand your skepticism. I wouldn't want to ignore it if the sky was actually falling, but. . .

[mlts70]

Remember that the computers and the computer models we had 30 years ago are not the same ones we have today. So, your reasoning is weak.

[Opinion Owner]

@mlts70

Yes, well if you are constantly adjusting your model to fit what happens you aren't really making any predictions, which is not subjecting your theory to any scientific test at all. This doesn't mean your theory is wrong but neither does it in any way indicate it is right.

The fact that your model needs this constant realignment to reality indicates at the very least that you didn't really know what you were doing when you first came up with the theory. That is is far more complicated than you first imagined.

[OlderAndWiser]

. . . and the fact that the computer models today are different doesn't mean that they are more accurate. Climatologists don't do a great job with predicting hurricanes beyond telling us where they will be in the next 24 hours and that does not require great skills of prognostication.

I also don't see any public exposition of data in any persuasive and convincing manner. It is as if these scientists think we are incapable of understanding whatever they tell us and we should simply blindly follow whatever they say. That only convinces me to be skeptical. Especially when the scientists are all government funded.

[Opinion Owner]

The only aspect of the question I have looked into deeply was the study of air trapped in arctic and antarctic ice. i was curious about how they accounted for gas diffusion. I must have read several hundred pages on the subject and buried at the heart of it is they just made up a number that seemed about right, since there is no way to test exactly how much there is over vast time frames and under field conditions. Everything depends on this number, the hard data can indicate almost anything depending on what number you choose.

[bluenose1872]

The fossil fuel industry is filthy anyway. Why shouldn't we look into renewable energy sources? It'll be cheaper and cleaner and if it does stop climate change then that's a bonus. Economies and fortunes are built off the global fossil fuel industry. I believe pseudo science is being percolated through the media to protect the profits. It's always about money. That's all people in power care about. For every truth in the media there's a thousand lies yet still people believe it. They're crazy

[NedfromtheNed]

Benefits to Global Warming
- The south will, literately, never rise again
- It will become warmer in the Midwest allowing for Wisconsin to leave the union and join Canada to make use of Flordia like tourism and economy.
- New Orleans will get a much needed bath
- Decrease in human population
- Easier tanning (Negative: the fake tan industry will be annihilated)
- The sun tan lotion industry will boom
- It may flood the Chinese constructed islands in the South China Sea
- Less of that white bullshit (snow)

[UncagedAgent]

I don't think I'm informed enough to make a "good" decision if I'm for or against the existance of GW. However regardless of its being real or not, I do think the plans people come up with to address it are beneficial. Wether or not it's real, I can't see a reason not to improve the quality of our world and I don't see a reason for us to not try and make our world cleaner.

[mlts70]

You are uneducated about science and have many wrong ideas about it. The discussion of whether global warming is real is over. There is a global consensus now. You are clinging to all the bogus arguments the Koch Brothers have been speading anonymously now for many years. I wonder why you have made yourself a tool of the oil industry.

[OlderAndWiser]

You have made some false assumptions. My undergraduate minor was in chemistry. I understand science. I also understand the influence of politics in science.

If you make assumptions about me which have no basis in fact, it reveals something about your concern for having facts before reaching conclusions, doesn't it?

[mlts70]

OK, I was partly wrong. But I think you are _greatly_ exaggerating the influence of politics on science. If you want the truth, at least as far as we know it, you don't ask politicians, you ask scientists.

[OlderAndWiser]

A team of European researchers have unveiled a scientific model showing that the Earth is likely to experience a “mini ice age” from 2030 to 2040 as a result of decreased solar activity.

Their findings will infuriate environmental campaigners who argue by 2030 we could be facing increased sea levels and flooding due to glacial melt at the poles.

However, at the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales, Northumbria University professor Valentina Zharkova said fluctuations an 11-year cycle of solar activity the sun goes through would be responsible for a freeze, the like of which has not been experienced since the 1600s.

www.express.co.uk/.../GLOBAL-COOLING-Decade-long-ice-age-predicted-as-sun-hibernates

[SonicRiver]

How can one be for it? I'm for one of the many conversations on how to curb it.

Global warming isn't just a trip to the equator. It's a series of high and low temperatures until everything evens out. It's Super Storm Sandy, it's Hurricane Katrina. It's the rapid flash flooding seen in central Texas which experienced this year two once in a century flash floods in May then again in October taking hundreds of lives.

[Byakuyarko]

I am absolutely pro global warming, basically any event that flushes humanity off the face of the planet... we've overstayed our welcome... No amount of 'clean energy' and environmental awareness is going to stop our extinction...

[Bluefish]

It is definetly happening but whether it is mainly natural or man made is the real debate

[YourFutureEx]

Why the fuck would anyone be for it? (Unless he's selfish and just desires money).

[Anonymous]

What is the agenda of those pushing the idea of global warming if it is false? What do they have to gain?

[OlderAndWiser]

If Western culture must reject many technological advances, it tends to bring Western civilization down to the third world level. This appeases their sense of guilt.

[TheOldMan59]

There are six and a half billion of us on the planet dude. If we aren't affecting the climate we must be doing something wrong. Sure I get angry when ignorant twats like you pretend there isn't a problem. Because without direct action now the whole thing becomes irreversible. Some people have to live on this planet, you know? Wake up and smell the coffee.

[OlderAndWiser]

"I am a natural skeptic but I have not reached any firm conclusions on this topic."

Wake up and learn to read. And, if you expected to be treated like an adult, you should drop the name calling.

[astrOnaut01]

I guess I am mostly for it. But to be honest, I haven't properly focused on researching climate change. You do bring up some fair points though.

[astrOnaut01]

If you don't believe it is happening then why don't you see for yourself? There are people living on the coasts or on the pacific islands who are witnessing the sea level rise with their own eyes.

Moreover, it wouldn't be a bad thing to adjust our consumption around the theory of global warming so that our environment is cleaner.

[iFarted]

I'm for it, time for the world to change. For better or for worse!

[Prof_Don]

... why the fuck would I be FOR global warming? :-P

[OlderAndWiser]

If maybe you're cold all the time?

I actually meant the title as a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor, but the gist of the question is "do you accept the theory of man-made global warming, do you reject it, or are you undecided?"

[Prof_Don]

... or maybe u meant "do you believe in global warming"?

In that case, yes I do fully believe in manmade global warming. Whoever doesn't needs to be informed.