Hey, Climate Change Activists: MANY Australian Bush Fires Are Deliberately Set

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Does that mean climate change cannot exacerbate the problem?

ENOUGH!!

You and like-minded are WRONG !!

Climate taxes /carbon credits are ONLY a scheme to enrich unqualified assholes like Al Gore incapable of making money any other way.

If you want to give YOUR money to YOUR religion, go ahead.

Millions of us do not want to FORCED to participate in what is clearly a fraudulent scheme for the gullible.

This is wrong.

Wrong ?

Might want to Google the millions protesting as Gilet Jaunes - the original reason for the protest was the imposition of Global Warming taxes on diesel.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: M5xaz

Taxes and money cause climate change?

Apparently....and more such taxes and Carbon credits going into Al Gore's pocket will all make it go away.....after all, Gore is an entitled little F**ck....

originally posted by: weirdguy

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Does that mean climate change cannot exacerbate the problem?

ENOUGH!!

You and like-minded are WRONG !!

Climate taxes /carbon credits are ONLY a scheme to enrich unqualified assholes like Al Gore incapable of making money any other way.

If you want to give YOUR money to YOUR religion, go ahead.

Millions of us do not want to FORCED to participate in what is clearly a fraudulent scheme for the gullible.

ENOUGH!!

You and like-minded are WRONG !!

Al Gore has nothing to do with what is happening now FFS

Gore promotes the fact-free drivel you so mindlessly swallow, like a good little lemming...

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: weirdguy

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Does that mean climate change cannot exacerbate the problem?

ENOUGH!!

You and like-minded are WRONG !!

Climate taxes /carbon credits are ONLY a scheme to enrich unqualified assholes like Al Gore incapable of making money any other way.

If you want to give YOUR money to YOUR religion, go ahead.

Millions of us do not want to FORCED to participate in what is clearly a fraudulent scheme for the gullible.

ENOUGH!!

You and like-minded are WRONG !!

Al Gore has nothing to do with what is happening now FFS

Gore promotes the fact-free drivel you so mindlessly swallow, like a good little lemming...

These people are looking kooky defending the lies from the MSM. The media are so adept at lying to them they swallow the fake claims business to avoid the truth about the failed theory. Panic prevention would be one reason why they lie. if only 24 people started fires that is still 24 arsonists. Improper fire precautions in a drought are not helping either. The Globalist want us to believe cow farts and SUV's are why the Earth is changing but the same people pretend to ignore the data about the whole solar system experience measurable changes that are similarly dynamic events.

a reply to: Justoneman
Yes there were still 24 arsonists and those fires resulted in small grass fires, the firestorms were caused by trees falling on power lines and lightning. But thats ok, keep on believing in the proven Arson HOAX, I understand that people like you don't like fact checking.

originally posted by: weirdguy
a reply to: Justoneman
Yes there were still 24 arsonists and those fires resulted in small grass fires, the firestorms were caused by trees falling on power lines and lightning. But thats ok, keep on believing in the proven Arson HOAX, I understand that people like you don't like fact checking.

I know right! I have provided plenty of evidence in this thread and others directly quoting Australian authorities stating that the arson/greens stopping clearing and burning narrative is complete nonsense. Fire authorities in all states have concluded that lightning started the majority of the fires, and that we do in fact hazard burn, and any reduction to hazard burning is due to dangerous weather conditions rather than any "green regulations". The drought and extreme weather is the excepted cause of the severity and geographic spread of these fires by fire authorities and wild fire researches. The CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology have warned for over a decade that climate change will increase the frequency, severity and duration of droughts and extreme heat events and that this will make our fire seasons longer and more severe.

Many people here simply don't want to believe it. I can't be bothered trying to correct them anymore. Trouble is, the more this misinformation is spouted, the more people believe it, and certain people and groups of people know this. There is an agenda at play and it makes me sick!

it is NOT complete nonsense. You are willing to ignore the facts to spew what the master brainwasher wants you to believe. Carry on, live life in a bubble. I can only offer you a red pill. You have to take that next step.

24 arsonist are 24 more than Australia needed, period end of statement there. AGW did not cause this, period.

originally posted by: Justoneman
it is NOT complete nonsense. You are willing to ignore the facts to spew what the master brainwasher wants you to believe. Carry on, live life in a bubble. I can only offer you a red pill. You have to take that next step.

24 arsonist are 24 more than Australia needed, period end of statement there. AGW did not cause this, period.

Dude. Those 24 arsonists were for the entire state of NSW, not just in bush fire area's (i.e lighting paddocks over the other side of the state from the big fires fires that are quickly contained for example). According to NSW fire service analysis, less than 1 percent of the land burned was from arson. Similar story from analysis from Victorian Fire Service. The Kangaroo island fire started from a thunderstorm over the Flinders Chase National Park, it then proceeded to burn half the island with a fire perimeter over 300km, driven by wind and flying embers.

I am from Australia and live in bushfire prone country. There is always arsonists, every year, always has been. We do hazard reduction burning every spring, have for decades. The drought and hot driving winds caused the fires to be so severe. I have never in my life seen fires persist for so long, over such a spread of the country. Neither has my father, nor my 94 year old grandmother who grew up on the land. The arson land/clearing narrative is bull&*$& misinformation that has been shown to have originated from the Murdoch press and has been spread online by bots and ignorant f^&$*s. I have linked to evidence of this in multiple threads. Look at those links if you care (you don't), I cannot be bothered re-posting it. People all over the internet are swallowing politically motivated misinformation hook line and sinker.

For the land clearing people. Look up the Pinary Fire.

The 2015 Pinery bushfire was a catastrophic bushfire that burned from 25 November to 2 December 2015, and primarily affected the Lower Mid North and west Barossa Valley regions immediately north of Gawler in the Australian state of South Australia. At least 86,000 hectares (210,000 acres) of scrub and farmland in the council areas of Light, Wakefield, Clare and Gilbert Valleys, and Mallala were burned during its duration.

On 25 November, during the major run of the Pinery fire, two fatalities occurred; Janet Hughes, 56, perished while fleeing in a vehicle outside Hamley Bridge; Allan Tiller, 69, perished while fighting the fire on a neighbour's property in Pinery itself. A further 90 people were hospitalized as a result of the fire, with five of the victims suffering critical injuries.

The Pinery fire destroyed or rendered uninhabitable 91 houses, and completely destroyed 388 non-residential structures, 93 pieces of farm machinery and 98 other vehicles.It also caused significant damage to rural produce; 53,000 poultry and 17,500 head of livestock perished and up to A$40 million worth of fodder and unharvested grains were destroyed. Communities affected by the fire included Barabba, Daveyston, Freeling, Greenock, Hamley Bridge, Kapunda, Magdala, Mallala, Nain, Nuriootpa, Owen, Pinery, Pinkerton Plains, Redbanks, Roseworthy, Stockport, Tarlee,

en.wikipedia.org...

Sparked by a car battery (quite literally sparking), this fire burned through country farmland not far from me. Interestingly, it burnt primarily through farmland, not Eucalyptus forest, and it was intense. It was basically a crop/scrub fire. Thats how intense things can be when the weather gets bad. It was hot and blowing a howling dry wind that day. I remember it clearly, there was a dust storm preceding the fire. Hot dry wind is what we have been dealing with all summer in 2019/2020. No amount of hazard reduction or land clearing could prevent what happened this year. Embers can fly up to 30km ahead of the fire front in these conditions.

As we have seen in the Kangaroo Island fires, flames whipped through both bushland and farmers paddocks in a literal fire storm, burning anything in its path, including low grass in grazing country. The fire was creating its own weather conditions. Locals have described the blaze as unstoppable.

Pinary Fire 2015 - Take note of the lack of tree's and the speed of the approaching fire front.



And here is the Kangaroo Island firestorm - sparked by lighting in a national park. This house is on a sheep property. Watch the video and think observe the speed of the fire front. Nothing could have stopped that fire.

a reply to: harold223

24 known arsonist and honestly there is no telling how many other a holes not caught in the act wanted to watch down under be destroyed.

One arsonist is one too many when it is so dry that small things cause them. IF it was a rain forest there it would never happen. We have to just accept that there are some people who DO want to help push the AGW lie any way they can they are so afraid of Mother Nature.


So I will conclude then that the entire amount which is known Arson in a drought crisis is to be ignored. Got it. I can't agree with that however. Carry on.

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: harold223

24 known arsonist and honestly there is no telling how many other a holes not caught in the act wanted to watch down under be destroyed.

One arsonist is one too many when it is so dry that small things cause them. IF it was a rain forest there it would never happen. We have to just accept that there are some people who DO want to help push the AGW lie any way they can they are so afraid of Mother Nature.


So I will conclude then that the entire amount which is known Arson in a drought crisis is to be ignored. Got it. I can't agree with that however. Carry on.

Arson is criminal, and should not be ignored. Arson occurs every year. A grass fire started by arson in my state a few weeks back was found to be started by a 13 year old girl. Arson is often caused by juveniles. Boredom and juvenile recklessness is the usual motive. But I'll say agin, this happens every year. We also have lightning starting fires every year, especially in drought conditions which tend to cause "dry lightning" storms. In these storms the rain evaporates before it hits the ground and the lightning strikes trees and causes fires. The NSW Fire Service chief inspector has stated that lightning did occur in remote forested areas at the time these fires started and is responsible for the large fire's that we have seen in the vast majority of cases.

This happens again, every year. This year, the weather conditions have been extreme. In the video above, from 2015, we also saw a fire occur early in the season in farmland. The fires have been occurring earlier and earlier in the season. In decades past, these fires in my state would not occur until January at the earliest, February being the peak. This is increasingly no longer the case. Catastrophic fires are occurring in Spring, the time we would normally do hazard reduction burning!! This is exactly what the CSIRO has said would happen over a decade ago. We will have wet years and droughts, as we always do, but the droughts are becoming more common, and more severe, just as the CSIRO has said they would. The climate where I live is no longer the same as it was in the 90's. It is harder to grow certain vegetables than it used to be and fruit tree's that thrived when I was a child are now struggling to set fruit. The climate here is hotter and drier than it used to be. It's my observation on the ground and it matches what the scientists have been telling people.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: continuousThunder

I was hoping to ignore the chemtrail bit, at least initially.

I want to know more about these abnormal fire temperatures.

"In the West, wildfires are burning hotter and more intensely than ever because of climate change.."

www.npr.org...


They claim 'climate change' is causing higher than normal temperatures in wildfires, which is complete bs.

Do you agree temperatures are higher than normal in such fires, or not?

Normal forests are not capable of such extreme fire temperatures, that's the point.

They claim 'climate change' is true. They also claim 'climate change' is causing all these extreme temperatures in wildfires, worldwide.

It's clearly linked. Nobody even can prove 'climate change' is true, and even if they could, somehow, as true, it wouldn't prove our climate causes extreme temperatures, nobody would know if it's all a coincidence, and not the cause, or partial cause of it, with other factors involved, or anything else.

To claim the climate is changing, and all records prove them wrong, is one thing.

When someone claims something, which is not proven true, to believe it without knowing any better, from a lack of knowledge, a lack of interest in those issues, a lack of research, etc. -

That's obviously the vast majority of people, that they don't know anything but from school, or from media, and that's about it.

At least with 'climate change', we know, and live in, the REAL world around us, every day. We know - or should know - the climate has NOT changed at all, despite the endless claims, by the media, feeding us lie after lie.

One of the main reasons why so many people, who accept every other claim, as true, don't think about it, and not involved each day, in it. Not like the climate is. Or records of it, showing no changes, at all.

And they know it, of course. They make excuses all the time, for anything suggesting 'change'.

When they first made this claim, and for many years afterwards, they claimed the Earth was warming up everywhere, over the whole planet, which was caused by humans, polluting the air, and water, by using cars and trucks, that poison our atmosphere, with 'carbon', and carbon was proclaimed to be a pollutant, which is a lie, of course.

But soon, when people found out that carbon was not really so bad, it is a normal component within the air, and is actually food for our plants, and so forth, which we knew made carbon a good thing, not a bad thing, like they claim it is.

And obviously, they had to claim something entirely different. They claim carbon is not a bad thing, if it's in normal amounts within our atmosphere, but too much carbon is 'building up' within our atmosphere, after so many years of spewing man-made carbon into the atmosphere, which has nowhere to go afterwards, because the atmosphere blocks carbon inside, and that's why carbon has 'built up', for so long, it is now a hazard, a pollutant, and that is why carbon is such a big problem!

Go into any greenhouse, and you'll know what an extreme level of carbon feels to be in, and how they are lying. Lie after lie, all the time...


Anyway - there might be nothing that can prove those temperatures are impossible to reach in forest fires/wildfires/ or so forth, and if forest fires could actually make trees explode, like some massive 'roman candle' or something, we'd certainly have known about it, all along, and nobody would have fought fires right away, asap, so this is NOT normal, these are extreme conditions, which do NOT occur within normal forest fires, and they would certainly know having those ridiculous fires which are suddenly causing trees to explode....is very bizarre, and not exactly normal, it is impossible to occur within any normal fires.


So that's why they claim it is caused by 'climate change'.

Somehow, the 'climate' is now creating these extreme temperatures in fires? Not a chance.


Do you see fires burn extremely hot like that, within areas that are far hotter, and are bone dry? No.


That lame excuse is what they spew out, and it is utter nonsense.



With normal forest fires, temperatures are not extreme, because the fuel is trees, and so on. If you were to set fire to a tree, it cannot reach any of those extreme temperatures, obviously. Same as house,building fires do not, as we all know.



It is only from adding materials capable of generating extreme temperatures, are such fires ever possible.


And THAT is what has 'built up' over time, within forests of Earth, sprayed with millions of particles, mostly aluminum, and others, which are EXTREMELY combustible, and generate extreme temperatures within fires.

a reply to: turbonium1

OK I have to agree on the temperature observations and caution the metals and chemicals being suggested are not showing up in the data that I see.

We don't see these metals in our environmental monitors when we do the studies in America, where I can see each states data. I don't see data from China or Australia but in rare snippets but I would think China is all bets off type of scenario.

What we in this field of Science need to see are data that shows these chemicals are real in the "wild" . Then after we find something above background detection limits we will need to see some correlating flight patterns that are documented in a meaningful way. If someone qualified to collect these data and certify the authenticity did so, then environmental Scientists world wide will be on it like white on rice. Like a dog on a fresh bone.

We don't have those data right now and that makes it hard to believe. (I disagree with my colleagues on the use of "these data" and "those data" when "the data" has always worked. That is the current consensus of the Scientific community, but I digress)

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: turbonium1

OK I have to agree on the temperature observations and caution the metals and chemicals being suggested are not showing up in the data that I see.

We don't see these metals in our environmental monitors when we do the studies in America, where I can see each states data. I don't see data from China or Australia but in rare snippets but I would think China is all bets off type of scenario.

What we in this field of Science need to see are data that shows these chemicals are real in the "wild" . Then after we find something above background detection limits we will need to see some correlating flight patterns that are documented in a meaningful way. If someone qualified to collect these data and certify the authenticity did so, then environmental Scientists world wide will be on it like white on rice. Like a dog on a fresh bone.

We don't have those data right now and that makes it hard to believe. (I disagree with my colleagues on the use of "these data" and "those data" when "the data" has always worked. That is the current consensus of the Scientific community, but I digress)

Thanks for your honest reply. Extreme fire temperatures cannot be caused naturally, for several reasons - temperature depends on what fuels a fire, and a forest - no matter how dry, or parched, or ripe for fires...it is the same material, same 'fuel', within them, which burns at the very same temperatures as all others have.

They are actually claiming that these fires are hotter than normal because of 'climate change', which made it a hotter than normal summer, or month, and the surface was extremely dry, and parched.

That's such bs. Fires use materials to exist in the first place, and the temperature of a fire depends on the material(s). that's how we have long known the temperatures of any fire, like forest fires.



'Climate change', the former 'global warming', is absolutely ridiculous. Just by looking at our historical temperature data - the REAL evidence - there is NO such change occurring. That is over 100 years of data, from everywhere on Earth, which has not changed. Look at the historical temperature data where you live, and tell me what you find, because I'll wager it is unchanged as well. If not, it would be the only case I've yet heard of.

When science basically ignores all of the valid, indisputable TEMPERATURE data, collected around the world, over the past 100 years.....THAT is a red flag. Moreso, when it is the only valid data we actually have, which is beyond dispute.

So, who better than NASA, to make up all sorts of UNPROVEN claims?...

"Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming"

climate.nasa.gov...

Lies about satellites, and so on, which all support the lie about 'climate change'. Same thing for 'ice cores'. etc.

And what about all the actual temperature records, over the past 100 years? It is completely ignored, as if it doesn't even exist.

No, they spew about our 'surface temperatures' increasing! Seriously?

This is a joke. How would the Earth's surface temperatures be steadily rising, over the last century, if all of the ACTUAL temperatures are the very same over the past century? They don't need to explain that problem, because they ignored the actual temperature records. And even if they did mention the data, they would churn out endless excuses for it, which are all unproven as well. Their bs never ends, it just changes, gets replaced, and piled higher and higher along the way. In fact, the piles are so massive, one has to sift through several 'documents' before any original source is found, and of course, the source is completely unproven as well!


Here is data that indicates levels of aluminum way beyond normal....


contrailscience.com...


But of course, whenever data is collected by the general public, as above, they will call it nonsense, for various reasons, and whether or not the data IS valid, doesn't matter, after that. When 'science' claims it is not valid, that's the end of it.

If the scientific community, who have already lied about 'climate change', and ignored all of the valid data, as if it didn't exist, and tell us that 'climate change' causes trees to explode now, are you really expecting them to accept data that proves they are complete liars and frauds?

I do not care what liars say about it. They are not authorities on anything at all, except how to lie about everything.



How much data would it take for people to accept it as true? It doesn't matter how much data there is, it won't be accepted as true, by most people, anyway. The ones who accept all their other lies, that is. The ones who believe everything the mass media says is true.

a reply to: turbonium1

But of course, whenever data is collected by the general public, as above, they will call it nonsense, for various reasons, and whether or not the data IS valid, doesn't matter, after that. When 'science' claims it is not valid, that's the end of it.

My charge is to prove the data I submit. There are standards for data collection and data analysis that must be met or peer reviewers who aid in verifying the data are instructed to identity that data and send it back to the collectors to null out the unusable portion.That challenge to the various monitors must be within what are a reasonable range of performance tests to certify the equipment needed for each parameter.

Back to the Temperature issue with the Aussie Fires. I don't imagine we are seeing abnormal temperatures we are seeing the rapid fires with winds which the wind is more energy. Heat and wind combine energy to increase temperatures. Fire tornado's should be about as hot as it gets. The area under a fire tornado is basically in a blast furnace.

Volcano activity is melting the West Antarctic glaciers. Not Man made global warming.

www.iceagenow.info...

with references

www.nature.com...

phys.org...


www.jpl.nasa.gov...-OBkE8.twitter

I started a thread on this

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: turbonium1

But of course, whenever data is collected by the general public, as above, they will call it nonsense, for various reasons, and whether or not the data IS valid, doesn't matter, after that. When 'science' claims it is not valid, that's the end of it.

My charge is to prove the data I submit. There are standards for data collection and data analysis that must be met or peer reviewers who aid in verifying the data are instructed to identity that data and send it back to the collectors to null out the unusable portion.That challenge to the various monitors must be within what are a reasonable range of performance tests to certify the equipment needed for each parameter.

Back to the Temperature issue with the Aussie Fires. I don't imagine we are seeing abnormal temperatures we are seeing the rapid fires with winds which the wind is more energy. Heat and wind combine energy to increase temperatures. Fire tornado's should be about as hot as it gets. The area under a fire tornado is basically in a blast furnace.

It's not normal temperatures, though. Much hotter than normal.

'Climate change' is nonsense, and now, it is used as a ridiculous excuse. It is made up nonsense, used to make up more nonsense.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: turbonium1

But of course, whenever data is collected by the general public, as above, they will call it nonsense, for various reasons, and whether or not the data IS valid, doesn't matter, after that. When 'science' claims it is not valid, that's the end of it.

My charge is to prove the data I submit. There are standards for data collection and data analysis that must be met or peer reviewers who aid in verifying the data are instructed to identity that data and send it back to the collectors to null out the unusable portion.That challenge to the various monitors must be within what are a reasonable range of performance tests to certify the equipment needed for each parameter.

Back to the Temperature issue with the Aussie Fires. I don't imagine we are seeing abnormal temperatures we are seeing the rapid fires with winds which the wind is more energy. Heat and wind combine energy to increase temperatures. Fire tornado's should be about as hot as it gets. The area under a fire tornado is basically in a blast furnace.

It's not normal temperatures, though. Much hotter than normal.

'Climate change' is nonsense, and now, it is used as a ridiculous excuse. It is made up nonsense, used to make up more nonsense.

I am having a very hard time with the temperature claim because of the Fire Tornado situation we have learned of recently.
It just can't be much hotter than normal when heat is about available energy that is all. Adding in vortex winds and that is Blast Furnace conditions in the wild spinning in spots much more heat than elsewhere. The normal temperatures in various conditions is certainly up for debate IMO. Is it Geo Engineering is a good question? Maybe not but it is possible.

I am seeing a lot of exaggeration of facts by the media if they can say someone is racist, or the Earth is warming blah blah blah. They are spinning the few facts they do use to make us believe lies. That requires us , no demands us, challenge them and their lies.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: turbonium1

But of course, whenever data is collected by the general public, as above, they will call it nonsense, for various reasons, and whether or not the data IS valid, doesn't matter, after that. When 'science' claims it is not valid, that's the end of it.

My charge is to prove the data I submit. There are standards for data collection and data analysis that must be met or peer reviewers who aid in verifying the data are instructed to identity that data and send it back to the collectors to null out the unusable portion.That challenge to the various monitors must be within what are a reasonable range of performance tests to certify the equipment needed for each parameter.

Back to the Temperature issue with the Aussie Fires. I don't imagine we are seeing abnormal temperatures we are seeing the rapid fires with winds which the wind is more energy. Heat and wind combine energy to increase temperatures. Fire tornado's should be about as hot as it gets. The area under a fire tornado is basically in a blast furnace.

It's not normal temperatures, though. Much hotter than normal.

'Climate change' is nonsense, and now, it is used as a ridiculous excuse. It is made up nonsense, used to make up more nonsense.

I am having a very hard time with the temperature claim because of the Fire Tornado situation we have learned of recently.
It just can't be much hotter than normal when heat is about available energy that is all. Adding in vortex winds and that is Blast Furnace conditions in the wild spinning in spots much more heat than elsewhere. The normal temperatures in various conditions is certainly up for debate IMO. Is it Geo Engineering is a good question? Maybe not but it is possible.

I am seeing a lot of exaggeration of facts by the media if they can say someone is racist, or the Earth is warming blah blah blah. They are spinning the few facts they do use to make us believe lies. That requires us , no demands us, challenge them and their lies.

For sure, extreme winds cause fires to expand. The strongest winds on record seem to happen during those fires, which is not an amazing coincidence, so I've certainly considered strong winds as part of it, too.

I didn't mention it earlier, only one part of it, the actual materials, the 'fuel'.


When you study these fires, there is one remarkable trait in common - extremely strong winds occur at the very same time all these fires have appeared...


Afterwards, when the fire is put out, or close to it, there is no wind at all, or barely so.


It's not a miraculous coincidence, obviously. It's deliberate. Every part of it.