Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on globa

[SSDD]

Natural News - Media Bias/Fact Check

A factual search reveals that Natural News has failed too many fact checks to list here. Overall, we rate Natural News a Questionable source based on promotion of quackery level pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, as well as extreme right wing bias. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet.​

It has been my experience that fact check itself is a dubious source insofar as science goes. They are pretty good at politics, and directing speeches, but they don't dig nearly deep enough into the sceince to be of any real use....they tend to go with withatever the consensus says even when there is peer reviewed published literature that says something else entirely.

 

[SSDD]

Natural News - Media Bias/Fact Check

A factual search reveals that Natural News has failed too many fact checks to list here. Overall, we rate Natural News a Questionable source based on promotion of quackery level pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, as well as extreme right wing bias. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet.​

Oddly, that doesn't seem to affect the papers linked in the article.

Good point.....they love to run down sources as if skeptical science, wiki, and the like that they use were "good" sources...and they simply ignore the peer reviewed, published science and empirical evidence upon which the articles are based.

 

[SSDD]

Oddly, that doesn't seem to affect the papers linked in the article.

Funny you should say that.

This Paper Has Climate Change Deniers Very Excited. There's Just One Tiny Problem

This Paper Has Climate Change Deniers Very Excited. There's Just One Tiny Problem

"Some news outlets are publishing articles stating that this claim is based on a new 'study'," Climate Feedback stated in a detailed debunking. "If they had contacted independent scientists for insight, instead of accepting this short document as revolutionary science, they would have found that it does not have any scientific credibility."

They were quick to point out what the study is actually based on is unclear, as the paper "provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature," and the document declares the authors do not consider computer models as evidence.

The scientists and experts the organization asked to review this paper – vital in the peer-review process – list among the many issues the fact that "[the] document only cites six references, four of which are the authors’ own, and of these, two are not actually published." Crucial data sources are not provided, figures used to support their claims are at odds with peer-reviewed studies, and the authors make claims "well beyond the scope of their data, without justification" they concluded.​

Computer models lacking repeatable, empirical verification are not evidence..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oddly, that doesn't seem to affect the papers linked in the article.

Funny you should say that.

This Paper Has Climate Change Deniers Very Excited. There's Just One Tiny Problem

This Paper Has Climate Change Deniers Very Excited. There's Just One Tiny Problem

"Some news outlets are publishing articles stating that this claim is based on a new 'study'," Climate Feedback stated in a detailed debunking. "If they had contacted independent scientists for insight, instead of accepting this short document as revolutionary science, they would have found that it does not have any scientific credibility."

They were quick to point out what the study is actually based on is unclear, as the paper "provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature," and the document declares the authors do not consider computer models as evidence.

The scientists and experts the organization asked to review this paper – vital in the peer-review process – list among the many issues the fact that "[the] document only cites six references, four of which are the authors’ own, and of these, two are not actually published." Crucial data sources are not provided, figures used to support their claims are at odds with peer-reviewed studies, and the authors make claims "well beyond the scope of their data, without justification" they concluded.​

LOL...

Your "debunking" was done by a far left extremists web sight that uses failed modeling as their basis when the paper uses empirically observed evidence.... Its rather amusing that you claim your models are more accurate than the systems actual observed reactions, which are calling your religion a hoax... Priceless left wing propaganda.

What do you call a hypothesis who's models do not reflect reality in observations? FAILED

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oddly, that doesn't seem to affect the papers linked in the article.

Funny you should say that.

This Paper Has Climate Change Deniers Very Excited. There's Just One Tiny Problem

This Paper Has Climate Change Deniers Very Excited. There's Just One Tiny Problem

"Some news outlets are publishing articles stating that this claim is based on a new 'study'," Climate Feedback stated in a detailed debunking. "If they had contacted independent scientists for insight, instead of accepting this short document as revolutionary science, they would have found that it does not have any scientific credibility."

They were quick to point out what the study is actually based on is unclear, as the paper "provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature," and the document declares the authors do not consider computer models as evidence.

The scientists and experts the organization asked to review this paper – vital in the peer-review process – list among the many issues the fact that "[the] document only cites six references, four of which are the authors’ own, and of these, two are not actually published." Crucial data sources are not provided, figures used to support their claims are at odds with peer-reviewed studies, and the authors make claims "well beyond the scope of their data, without justification" they concluded.​

LOL...

Your "debunking" was done by a far left extremists web sight that uses failed modeling as their basis when the paper uses empirically observed evidence.... Its rather amusing that you claim your models are more accurate than the systems actual observed reactions are calling your religion a hoax... Priceless left wing propaganda.

What do you call a hypothesis who's models do not reflect reality in observations? FAILED

I have never met some one who uses as many words as you do to say nothing.

You rival other liberals here in ignorance.... The feeling is mutual...

It amazes me how a failed model is more accurate than observed evidence... Stunning ignorance by the left...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oddly, that doesn't seem to affect the papers linked in the article.

Funny you should say that.

This Paper Has Climate Change Deniers Very Excited. There's Just One Tiny Problem

This Paper Has Climate Change Deniers Very Excited. There's Just One Tiny Problem

"Some news outlets are publishing articles stating that this claim is based on a new 'study'," Climate Feedback stated in a detailed debunking. "If they had contacted independent scientists for insight, instead of accepting this short document as revolutionary science, they would have found that it does not have any scientific credibility."

They were quick to point out what the study is actually based on is unclear, as the paper "provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature," and the document declares the authors do not consider computer models as evidence.

The scientists and experts the organization asked to review this paper – vital in the peer-review process – list among the many issues the fact that "[the] document only cites six references, four of which are the authors’ own, and of these, two are not actually published." Crucial data sources are not provided, figures used to support their claims are at odds with peer-reviewed studies, and the authors make claims "well beyond the scope of their data, without justification" they concluded.​

LOL...

Your "debunking" was done by a far left extremists web sight that uses failed modeling as their basis when the paper uses empirically observed evidence.... Its rather amusing that you claim your models are more accurate than the systems actual observed reactions are calling your religion a hoax... Priceless left wing propaganda.

What do you call a hypothesis who's models do not reflect reality in observations? FAILED

I have never met some one who uses as many words as you do to say nothing.

You rival other liberals here in ignorance.... The feeling is mutual...

It amazes me how a failed model is more accurate than observed evidence... Stunning ignorance by the left...

While you tout sources like these go fuck your self.

LOL...

The source is not the issue.. It is the facts you ignore that are. When a fantasy is more accurate than observed empirical evidence that calls it into question, you have a sever credibility problem. I deal in FACTS I can prove.. They do not... Its as simple as that.

 

[HenryBHough]

Meanwhile newspapers in The UK (except in Communist Wales) are warning about the impending mini ice age:

Weather warning: Earth could be hit by MINI ICE-AGE as Sun ‘hibernates’

Cyclical.

Look it up, liberals.

 

[evenflow1969]

Funny you should say that.

This Paper Has Climate Change Deniers Very Excited. There's Just One Tiny Problem

This Paper Has Climate Change Deniers Very Excited. There's Just One Tiny Problem

"Some news outlets are publishing articles stating that this claim is based on a new 'study'," Climate Feedback stated in a detailed debunking. "If they had contacted independent scientists for insight, instead of accepting this short document as revolutionary science, they would have found that it does not have any scientific credibility."

They were quick to point out what the study is actually based on is unclear, as the paper "provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature," and the document declares the authors do not consider computer models as evidence.

The scientists and experts the organization asked to review this paper – vital in the peer-review process – list among the many issues the fact that "[the] document only cites six references, four of which are the authors’ own, and of these, two are not actually published." Crucial data sources are not provided, figures used to support their claims are at odds with peer-reviewed studies, and the authors make claims "well beyond the scope of their data, without justification" they concluded.​

LOL...

Your "debunking" was done by a far left extremists web sight that uses failed modeling as their basis when the paper uses empirically observed evidence.... Its rather amusing that you claim your models are more accurate than the systems actual observed reactions are calling your religion a hoax... Priceless left wing propaganda.

What do you call a hypothesis who's models do not reflect reality in observations? FAILED

I have never met some one who uses as many words as you do to say nothing.

You rival other liberals here in ignorance.... The feeling is mutual...

It amazes me how a failed model is more accurate than observed evidence... Stunning ignorance by the left...

While you tout sources like these go fuck your self.

LOL...

The source is not the issue.. It is the facts you ignore that are. When a fantasy is more accurate than observed empirical evidence that calls it into question, you have a sever credibility problem. I deal in FACTS I can prove.. They do not... Its as simple as that.

The source offers no facts. Mean while I am a civil engineer and I am one of the people tasked to deal with the extra water and soil erosion occuring due to climate change. It is already effecting my wallet ass hole as I currently need to spend 250k on new floating docks and my fish cutting building, I will likely just knock down. Those of us that make a living on the water and near the water know what the fuck is going on. My fuel expenditures are rising every year because I have to travel 20 miles to find clear water for fishing because of constant flood and with drawl. I have real choices to make with my marina on lake erie and my marina down in the keys. My buildings and docks are flooding. I had to cancel 30 percent of my trips last year because the docks were flooded and it was to dangerous to unload and load people onto my boats. Real costs coming out of my pocket and I do not like it. So ya show up here in a couple of months while my docks are being built and tell me I do not need to spend the money. I will give a free one way trip on one of my fishing vessles.

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL...

Your "debunking" was done by a far left extremists web sight that uses failed modeling as their basis when the paper uses empirically observed evidence.... Its rather amusing that you claim your models are more accurate than the systems actual observed reactions are calling your religion a hoax... Priceless left wing propaganda.

What do you call a hypothesis who's models do not reflect reality in observations? FAILED

I have never met some one who uses as many words as you do to say nothing.

You rival other liberals here in ignorance.... The feeling is mutual...

It amazes me how a failed model is more accurate than observed evidence... Stunning ignorance by the left...

While you tout sources like these go fuck your self.

LOL...

The source is not the issue.. It is the facts you ignore that are. When a fantasy is more accurate than observed empirical evidence that calls it into question, you have a sever credibility problem. I deal in FACTS I can prove.. They do not... Its as simple as that.

The source offers no facts. Mean while I am a civil engineer and I am one of the people tasked to deal with the extra water and soil erosion occuring due to climate change. It is already effecting my wallet ass hole as I currently need to spend 250k on new floating docks and my fish cutting building, I will likely just knock down. Those of us that make a living on the water and near the water know what the fuck is going on. My fuel expenditures are rising every year because I have to travel 20 miles to find clear water for fishing because of constant flood and with drawl. I have real choices to make with my marina on lake erie and my marina down in the keys. My buildings and docks are flooding. I had to cancel 30 percent of my trips last year because the docks were flooded and it was to dangerous to unload and load people onto my boats. Real costs coming out of my pocket and I do not like it. So ya show up here in a couple of months while my docks are being built and tell me I do not need to spend the money. I will give a free one way trip on one of my fishing vessles.

I am an Atmospheric Physicist..... I have a Masters in it and am currently a doctoral candidate.

Your correlation does not meet even basic criteria for proving your hypothesis. The earths cycles created massive canyons by wash out. Your mountain ranges created valleys and ravines by wash out. All of this has happened over and over again in earths paleo history. Did man cause these basic climatic cycles? No. Now tell me how you ascertained that man is causing the current changes and they are not natural variation cycles.

 

[evenflow1969]

I have never met some one who uses as many words as you do to say nothing.

You rival other liberals here in ignorance.... The feeling is mutual...

It amazes me how a failed model is more accurate than observed evidence... Stunning ignorance by the left...

While you tout sources like these go fuck your self.

LOL...

The source is not the issue.. It is the facts you ignore that are. When a fantasy is more accurate than observed empirical evidence that calls it into question, you have a sever credibility problem. I deal in FACTS I can prove.. They do not... Its as simple as that.

The source offers no facts. Mean while I am a civil engineer and I am one of the people tasked to deal with the extra water and soil erosion occuring due to climate change. It is already effecting my wallet ass hole as I currently need to spend 250k on new floating docks and my fish cutting building, I will likely just knock down. Those of us that make a living on the water and near the water know what the fuck is going on. My fuel expenditures are rising every year because I have to travel 20 miles to find clear water for fishing because of constant flood and with drawl. I have real choices to make with my marina on lake erie and my marina down in the keys. My buildings and docks are flooding. I had to cancel 30 percent of my trips last year because the docks were flooded and it was to dangerous to unload and load people onto my boats. Real costs coming out of my pocket and I do not like it. So ya show up here in a couple of months while my docks are being built and tell me I do not need to spend the money. I will give a free one way trip on one of my fishing vessles.

I am an Atmospheric Physicist..... I have a Masters in it and am currently a doctoral candidate.

Your correlation does not meet even basic criteria for proving your hypothesis. The earths cycles created massive canyons by wash out. Your mountain ranges created valleys and ravines by wash out. All of this has happened over and over again in earths paleo history. Did man cause these basic climatic cycles? No. Now tell me how you ascertained that man is causing the current changes and they are not natural variation cycles.

Not my fucking job nor my discipline, what I can attest to is that the water is rising due to loss of ice. I have to design aroundit every day and it is hitting my wallet every day. I can tell you this you can take your doctorate and shove it up your ass if you count this sites data for any thing close to scientific method. What I do know is that saying man kind has zero effect is an out and out lie. Pissing in the ocean has an effect. A very small one but an effect none the less. If you are in fact a scientist as proclaimed you know that every action has an oposite and equal reaction. There is no such thing as zero effect, every thing we do has an effect on our surroudnings to a degree. So no I have no respect for your opinions. Your opinions are for sale. Real mopney is being spent evey day on the effects of climate change that you say does not exist, you can go fuck your self.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Not my fucking job nor my discipline, what I can attest to is that the water is rising due to loss of ice.

And you have no clue as to cause...

That is funny as hell... You assert a causation without the facts to prove it. I show you very easily that the earths cycles dwarf everything man MIGHT have an impact on but you choose to correlate it and say it is proof. I deal in testable and repeatable science not hyperbolic un-provable hypothesis. The only people for sale are those sucking off the government tet..

 

[Kilroy2]

Don't get to excited by a reach paper written by two guys that doesn't even appear to have had a peer review

But it is making the rounds on the right wing news cites as proof positive

Just goes to show anything can be placed on the internet

Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku E-mail address: jyrkau@utu.fi

This is not a journal paper. It is on ArXiv, which is not peer-reviewed.

and that is how the wheels go round and around

Just guys writing a paper with their perceptions and do not even have a peer review because they know what will happen

believe it or not

its the same argument and really changes nothing

 

[Dick Foster]

You rival other liberals here in ignorance.... The feeling is mutual...

It amazes me how a failed model is more accurate than observed evidence... Stunning ignorance by the left...

While you tout sources like these go fuck your self.

LOL...

The source is not the issue.. It is the facts you ignore that are. When a fantasy is more accurate than observed empirical evidence that calls it into question, you have a sever credibility problem. I deal in FACTS I can prove.. They do not... Its as simple as that.

The source offers no facts. Mean while I am a civil engineer and I am one of the people tasked to deal with the extra water and soil erosion occuring due to climate change. It is already effecting my wallet ass hole as I currently need to spend 250k on new floating docks and my fish cutting building, I will likely just knock down. Those of us that make a living on the water and near the water know what the fuck is going on. My fuel expenditures are rising every year because I have to travel 20 miles to find clear water for fishing because of constant flood and with drawl. I have real choices to make with my marina on lake erie and my marina down in the keys. My buildings and docks are flooding. I had to cancel 30 percent of my trips last year because the docks were flooded and it was to dangerous to unload and load people onto my boats. Real costs coming out of my pocket and I do not like it. So ya show up here in a couple of months while my docks are being built and tell me I do not need to spend the money. I will give a free one way trip on one of my fishing vessles.

I am an Atmospheric Physicist..... I have a Masters in it and am currently a doctoral candidate.

Your correlation does not meet even basic criteria for proving your hypothesis. The earths cycles created massive canyons by wash out. Your mountain ranges created valleys and ravines by wash out. All of this has happened over and over again in earths paleo history. Did man cause these basic climatic cycles? No. Now tell me how you ascertained that man is causing the current changes and they are not natural variation cycles.

Not my fucking job nor my discipline, what I can attest to is that the water is rising due to loss of ice. I have to design aroundit every day and it is hitting my wallet every day. I can tell you this you can take your doctorate and shove it up your ass if you count this sites data for any thing close to scientific method. What I do know is that saying man kind has zero effect is an out and out lie. Pissing in the ocean has an effect. A very small one but an effect none the less. If you are in fact a scientist as proclaimed you know that every action has an oposite and equal reaction. There is no such thing as zero effect, every thing we do has an effect on our surroudnings to a degree. So no I have no respect for your opinions. Your opinions are for sale. Real mopney is being spent evey day on the effects of climate change that you say does not exist, you can go fuck your self.

BULLSHIT! I learned to scuba dive and was certified on a small corral attol about 3 degrees south of the equator. This was back in the early 1970s. I was there twice in two years running. The highest point on that attol was maybe 4 or 5 feet.
Being very near the equator, sea level change is most notable there so would have the most impact. However if you go to Google maps and look at it today, it remains high and dry.
The island is called something else today as it was handed over to Kiribati however it still answers to Canton Island or Kanton on Google maps.
It is in the Phoenix island archipelago. The other minor atolls are still there and are still high and dry too like Enderbury and Birney which are even smaller with lower elevations.
This is fact, not fiction and no bullshit mathematical modeling is involved, only your very own eyeballs need come into play. Have a look for yourself then stop yammering nonsense.

 

[Billy_Bob]

But it is making the rounds on the right wing news cites as proof positive

And you ignore the facts they presented and linked too.

You people are so busy laying blame and using credibility smears that you ignore the facts they present and the sources where they can be obtained. You are so invested in smearing those who do not agree with you that you accept bastardized and politicized crap without question.

Again, provide your empirically observed and quantified evidence which supports your assumptions.. I'll wait..

 

[Kilroy2]

But it is making the rounds on the right wing news cites as proof positive

And you ignore the facts they presented and linked too.

You people are so busy laying blame and using credibility smears that you ignore the facts they present and the sources where they can be obtained. You are so invested in smearing those who do not agree with you that you accept bastardized and politicized crap without question.

Again, provide your empirically observed and quantified evidence which supports your assumptions.. I'll wait..

does this paper state anything that has not already been stated

I just said that it is just a paper and unless it is reviewed then you are making the same claim

ignoring the facts

but go ahead and tell us who wrote this paper and what are his credentials

 

[ReinyDays]

I've heard this tale before ... that the IPCC assumes average cloud cover remains constant with rising temperatures ... they kind of have to or they'd have nothing to report ... if average cloudiness increases then we have a rather profound negative feedback mechanism ... the numbers involved seem to speak to an overwhelming negative feedback ...

Alas ... this is an insanely difficult thing to measure accurately ... don't confuse these new generation GOES images with anything we have for the past 100 years ... we cannot say at this time whether clouds are increasing or decreasing ...

There's very good reason to believe there will be more average cloudiness ... higher temperatures at the surface cause more water to evaporate, which in turn means more water condenses into clouds aloft, increasing albedo, decreasing solar energy, decreasing surface temperatures ... all without violating any of the laws of thermodynamics ...

I have no idea whether the IPCC says cloudiness remains constant or not ... I'll need book, chapter and verse before I believe such an outrage ...

 

[22lcidw]

I call Bull Shit

An affect on the climate I might add.

 

[Billy_Bob]

But it is making the rounds on the right wing news cites as proof positive

And you ignore the facts they presented and linked too.

You people are so busy laying blame and using credibility smears that you ignore the facts they present and the sources where they can be obtained. You are so invested in smearing those who do not agree with you that you accept bastardized and politicized crap without question.

Again, provide your empirically observed and quantified evidence which supports your assumptions.. I'll wait..

does this paper state anything that has not already been stated

I just said that it is just a paper and unless it is reviewed then you are making the same claim

ignoring the facts

but go ahead and tell us who wrote this paper and what are his credentials

I dont really care who wrote it. Like I said before, I deal in empirical evidence and fact. That is how I judge a papers validity. Is it science based and can it be reproduced? Those are the questions I ask as I read all kinds of papers and opinion pieces. "peer review" has been bastardized and is no longer acceptable as standard that gives credibility to anything. You can thank Phil Jones, the EAU, and the CRU for that gate keeping which discredited journals and that process. The Blog-O-Sphere now allows open discussions among real scientist in real time. I have about 60 people with whom I communicate regularly from all sides of the climate debate.

 

[22lcidw]

LOL...

Your "debunking" was done by a far left extremists web sight that uses failed modeling as their basis when the paper uses empirically observed evidence.... Its rather amusing that you claim your models are more accurate than the systems actual observed reactions are calling your religion a hoax... Priceless left wing propaganda.

What do you call a hypothesis who's models do not reflect reality in observations? FAILED

I have never met some one who uses as many words as you do to say nothing.

You rival other liberals here in ignorance.... The feeling is mutual...

It amazes me how a failed model is more accurate than observed evidence... Stunning ignorance by the left...

While you tout sources like these go fuck your self.

LOL...

The source is not the issue.. It is the facts you ignore that are. When a fantasy is more accurate than observed empirical evidence that calls it into question, you have a sever credibility problem. I deal in FACTS I can prove.. They do not... Its as simple as that.

The source offers no facts. Mean while I am a civil engineer and I am one of the people tasked to deal with the extra water and soil erosion occuring due to climate change. It is already effecting my wallet ass hole as I currently need to spend 250k on new floating docks and my fish cutting building, I will likely just knock down. Those of us that make a living on the water and near the water know what the fuck is going on. My fuel expenditures are rising every year because I have to travel 20 miles to find clear water for fishing because of constant flood and with drawl. I have real choices to make with my marina on lake erie and my marina down in the keys. My buildings and docks are flooding. I had to cancel 30 percent of my trips last year because the docks were flooded and it was to dangerous to unload and load people onto my boats. Real costs coming out of my pocket and I do not like it. So ya show up here in a couple of months while my docks are being built and tell me I do not need to spend the money. I will give a free one way trip on one of my fishing vessles.

The nature of the earth is change. Humans love the coastal or areas near water. Barrier islands and the areas closest to the ocean have their topography change. We are specks to that. The same with living in flood plains. If it makes you feel better to blame climate change on humans because you have been personally affected, is wrong. I am not gloating. Especially if you worked hard for what you have. i am tired of being scammed. Every agenda started by Progs have never stopped expanding. As one example...it is going to pay to be handicapped soon if it is not all ready. Perhaps that is why half the people on disability are questionable in deserving those benefits. And there are many. From parking lots to cruise ships to hotels, to stores to construction costs to many other ways of living. And the costs are passed on to the consumer/taxpayer. Who get a big fuck you for not doling out even more.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I've heard this tale before ... that the IPCC assumes average cloud cover remains constant with rising temperatures ... they kind of have to or they'd have nothing to report ... if average cloudiness increases then we have a rather profound negative feedback mechanism ... the numbers involved seem to speak to an overwhelming negative feedback ...

Alas ... this is an insanely difficult thing to measure accurately ... don't confuse these new generation GOES images with anything we have for the past 100 years ... we cannot say at this time whether clouds are increasing or decreasing ...

There's very good reason to believe there will be more average cloudiness ... higher temperatures at the surface cause more water to evaporate, which in turn means more water condenses into clouds aloft, increasing albedo, decreasing solar energy, decreasing surface temperatures ... all without violating any of the laws of thermodynamics ...

I have no idea whether the IPCC says cloudiness remains constant or not ... I'll need book, chapter and verse before I believe such an outrage ...

The IPCC does not address the cloud issue just as they do not actually address water vapor.

The CERN database is just 22 years old and does not yet contain enough data to make any assertions other than global cloud cover has indeed increased by 0.9% over the last 22 years. Most of that increase has happened in the last 5 years and correlates with the increase of galactic radiation penetrating our lower atmosphere, not the 0.3 Deg C rise which occurred in 2012-2016 due to El Niño events.

Other than a rough correlation nothing can be assumed at this point. The albedo change however, has a very specific and measurable response, which is the premise of the papers energy balance change. A repeatable and verifiable scientifically observed effect.