Artful Dodger:

"Two Harvard economists on Wednesday acknowledged errors in a study that has been cited by policymakers around the world as justification for government austerity campaigns, but said the "central message" of their research was still valid.

The 2010 study by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff found economic growth throughout modern history has slowed dramatically when a government's debt exceeds 90 percent of a country's annual economic output.

But in a study made public this week, researchers from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst found spreadsheet coding errors in Reinhart and Rogoff's work.

The two Harvard economists said the mistake was an accident.

Speaking to Today business presenter Simon Jack, Professor Robert Pollin explained that research methods become more inaccurate the more recently you apply their test.

"The relationship evaporates entirely," he said. "

Mistakes that mean....

"First off, the researchers made a major error in their Excel spreadsheet's formula: they skipped 5 rows of data. Oops.

Second, they inexplicably (or maybe intentionally - no explanation has been presented) excluded post-WWII data for countries whose growth was positive while debt was above 90% of GDP from the spreadsheet.

Third, if a country had positive growth for multiple years while debt was above 90% of GDP, they averaged all those positive years together into a single number, then gave the multi-year aggregate result the exact same weight as a single year from a country that had negative growth.

The flawed (faked?) study concluded that economic growth in countries with debt greater than 90% of GDP is always negative at -0.1%.

But if you include the data that was left out of the spreadsheet, add in the rows of data that were skipped, and give each year's data the same weight, the actual historic growth rate when the debt exceeds 90% of GDP is 2.2%. "

http://www.greenmountaindaily.com/diary/9855/austerity-study-was-100-completely-and-totally-wrong.

Artful Dodger: No. She messed up lots. As someone said she had to wear the trousers of a man to be PM.... but she wore them roughly. Certain policies she made, while to a degree they were right... She was crass about how they were enacted.

She deliberately used a boom and bust economic policy that did make the country look great until the bubble burst.

And then there is Hillsborough. You know 'The Sun' paper is boycotted by most in the city of Liverpool because of it's reporting on the disaster.

The Col: No... because it was like that before hand, but I think people only paid 90% if they had no advice from a good accountant.

(V): I think she was one of the greatest PM ever

(V): Maybe the musician who mentioned the 90% rate was being a little over zealous

The Col: Not quite true. She dropped the highest rate from 83% to 60% in her governments first budget of 1980.

While the lowest earners got a 3% rate cut in the same year from 33% to 30%

... Regardless, most of the top earners while being British officially live in tax haven countries to avoid paying UK income tax. Or if they are rich enough like the Barclay brothers... buy an island. In their case the island of Brecqhou just off Sark (one of the channel islands).

(V): I remember lots of musicians left GB when she jacked the highest tax rate to around 90%

Artful Dodger: She was so great her party dumped her, as her popularity within the UK had dropped to a level where she could not be a PM to lead her party through another General election.

She destroyed communities and helped the police cover up the Hillsborough mess. Plus many suspect she knew about Jimmy Saville and how much of a paedophile he was. It's very unlikely that all the rumours about him did not reach her.

... but he was a 'hero' at the time.

"Ding Dong the Witch is dead" got to number two in the charts yesterday!!

Iamon lyme: More or less than when when you keep on going on about how democrats and liberals are destroying the USA?

Seriously, CO2 is just one of the gasses as I have stated. It is a relatively easy one for us to control the output off by man... that's all.

"You want to know why the global warming chant is still touted as a threat, even though we are more likely to endure global cooling as a result of CO2? No one needed to tell me this either because it's kind of obvious. Care to guess?"

No. Just who is stating it's gonna happen apart from some wrong scientists from the 80's... or about that time who's views were used by the press to sell papers.

(V): I think she was a great leader and stats showed she made some positive differences.

"You want to know why the global warming chant is still touted as a threat, even though we are more likely to endure global cooling as a result of CO2?"

[ Okay Lemon Lime, assuming an abundance of CO2 always follows global warming instead of preceding it, why ARE they still saying CO2 causes global warming? ]

Because it wouldn't look good to change their story now, after years of beating it into our heads about an upcoming global warming crisis.

[ So what? Science is about learning the truth. What could they gain by not telling us the truth? ]

Nothing, but that's the point. It's what they risk losing by telling us the truth that has them worried. All of the time and effort to make us afraid of global warming would go down the drain.

[ Again, so what? ]

So they would have to switch gears and then tell us all about the horrors of global cooling.

[ Why would they do that? ]

To keep the fear factor in place. Remember, it doesn't matter if the earth is warming or cooling, all that matters is to make people afraid of CO2 so they will reject oil and and coal and throw their money into renewable resources. They can't afford to start telling the truth now, because it would cause many of the people who fell for the global warming hoax to begin doubting environmental scientists... environmental scientists like Al Gore for instance. If an environmental scientist like Al Gore was wrong about global warming, then who is to say he can't be wrong again?

[ I don't believe you! Al Gore is NOT an environmental scientist! ]

You got me on that one. By the way, who are you?

[ I'm your alter ego. ]

Impossible! You can't be MY alter ego, because I'm ADs alter ego... well, at least I was for awhile.

[ That's right, you were... but not anymore. Now I am. ]

NoooooOooOOooooOoooo... okay, yes.

(V): "Uhhhh no. Just you've been told they are."

Uhhhhh, no. No one needed to tell me. I'd have to be pretty stupid not to notice that it's almost all you ever hear about in the news. Carbon this and carbon that, CO2 here and CO2 there and everywhere, the evil carbon will kill you and your children... be afraid, be very afraid. Bwa ha ha ha ha...

"For decades they have been fighting against deforestation."

And for decades I would hear about that almost every day as well. So, is the fuel used to burn those forests down the problem or is it something else?
(just kidding)


You want to know why the global warming chant is still touted as a threat, even though we are more likely to endure global cooling as a result of CO2? No one needed to tell me this either because it's kind of obvious. Care to guess?

Iamon lyme: Uhhhh no. Just you've been told they are. For decades they have been fighting against deforestation. The removal of great areas of the likes of the Amazon Rain Forest.. Such is, that toilet paper makers proudly present that they plant new trees.

CO2 is just one of the gases. The real nasty ones will start to 'melt' from perma frost if temps keep rising.

"and more vegetation gives off more of the CO2 gas."

CO2 they absorb during daylight and give off O. At night they absorb O and give off CO2.

Two parts to the photosynthesis equation... apart from sunlight, nitrogen and other bits.

.... never eat vegetation near a radioactive leak, it absorbs the heavy elements easily.

"Animals and insects only take in oxygen and give off CO2"

A certain percentage of oxygen. We don't absorb it all, that's why CPR works. ;P

"When I first learned this I didn't know how there could be more of the CO2 being made... if it's a back and forth process then production of both should ballance out."

Assuming it does all ballance out and as much oxygen as CO2 enters the atmosphere, then you would still see an increase of CO2. If the ratio of oxygen to CO2 remained the same it wouldn't matter to environmentalists, since all of their focus has been on how much carbon is there.

See how this works? Environmentalists focus all of their attention on one little element and convince us it is an evil byproduct produced by the burning of oil procured by evil oil companies.

I thought I was supposed to be the ignorant religious nut here because I believe in God. So what's up with environmentalists trying to scare people by getting them to believe in the evil oil monster?

"...during periods of warming there is more plant activity and more vegetation gives off more of the CO2 gas."

I should probably explain how this could happen, seeing as how vegetation takes in CO2 and gives off oxygen. Vegetation actually does both... when photosynthesis is happening it takes in CO2 and gives off oxygen, when photosynthesis isn't happening (primarily at night) then it takes in oxygen and gives off CO2. When I first learned this I didn't know how there could be more of the CO2 being made... if it's a back and forth process then production of both should ballance out. But an increase of vegetation also means an increase of animal and insect life because of more available food. Animals and insects only take in oxygen and give off CO2, so that's how the ballance tips in favor of an increased level of CO2.

(V): "When are scientists going to stand up and admit carbon is good for the planet? And 'too much' of it in the atmosphere would actually cause global cooling, not global warming."

[[ ?? are you sure? I know the sulphur gasses given out by volcano's 'reflects' sunlight.]]

If that's true then those sulphur gasses would be reflecting sunlight away from earth, not reflecting the radiant energy back, which I presume is what some scientists are saying CO2 does.

The earth is a very complex system, and comparing water vapor and other gasses in the atmosphere to a greenhouse as the main or only cause of weather change is an oversimplification. And yes, when Ice core samples were taken they concluded carbon dioxide in the atmosphere preceded global warming. Later tests revealed the opposite, higher concentrations of CO2 followed periods of global warming. This makes sense, because during periods of warming there is more plant activity and more vegetation gives off more of the CO2 gas.

In memory of Maggie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g9ysArxCdk

Some in the UK are sad she's gone.. others have held street parties.

Iamon lyme: Without going through tons of reports and stats... I can make this general statement.

... Every new power development in the UK is getting help from HM Gov. Nuclear, renewable, etc.. they all are. Plus various universities are through mixed investment looking into developing more tech and improving on what is already known.

"When are scientists going to stand up and admit carbon is good for the planet? And 'too much' of it in the atmosphere would actually cause global cooling, not global warming."

?? are you sure? I know the sulphur gasses given out by volcano's 'reflects' sunlight.

(V): (V): [[ "French company GDF Suez warned it would need increased financial incentives, including a strengthened price on carbon dioxide...

...puts it on the same footing as other forms of low-carbon energy...

A top official from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) told the Guardian: "We have made it very clear that this is about low-carbon energy in total." ]]


There's that word 'carbon' again. That word is key for supporting wind/solar and even nuclear energy. It's too bad so many people are unaware of what carbon in the atmosphere actually does. Al Gore wouldn't have dared trying to bamboozle the public with his scare for profit scheme if the junk science behind global warming wasn't king. When are scientists going to stand up and admit carbon is good for the planet? And 'too much' of it in the atmosphere would actually cause global cooling, not global warming.

(V): "Do they..."

Yes. When automobiles were a new thing did the government need to step in so Ford couldn't monopolise the automotive industry? Competition is what prevents monopolies, or breaks them up when someone provides a better choice... that could mean better quality or lower price or more useful features or a combination of those things. That's not a bad thing for the consumer, it's a good thing.


I asked you "Can you give me an example of a large scale solar or wind power plant that is able to supply power to the general public, and survive without ongoing government subsidies?"

You gave some examples but it's not clear if they are or were subsidized or not. And in case there is any misunderstanding, I'm talking about government subsidies... not investors capital. Investors risk losing their investment. But that's okay with me because it's their money being risked, not the taxpayers.

Iamon lyme: Do they.... Not always I have to say has to be held up as being as true as 'they do'.

(V): "Even if governments were not involved... we'd still have monopolies, as we do now manipulating the market, bribing suppliers to reject competitors."

You can't stop monopolies from occurring, they will happen. Competitors always manage to overcome a monopolies stranglehold over a particular industry, unless government partners with that monopoly. A powerful business monopolising an inudstry always attracts the attention of a powerful government intent on holding onto its own power... they will either support the monopoly or oppose it.

I suppose in a perfect world there would be no monopolies. In a perfect world I would also win as many games of chess as I lose, but then I could also forget about any ambition about rising to the top. Fantazising over what life would be like in a perfect world has never improved my game.

Looking back at some one the 'wins' it's a good way to get some 'weight' behind a petition.

should have read...

Looking back at some of the 'wins', it's a good way to get some 'weight' behind a petition.

Artful Dodger: Just follow the instructions.

I like this system. Looking back at some one the 'wins' it's a good way to get some 'weight' behind a petition.

(V): haha where do I sign! I'd love to see him put his money where his mouth is!

Artful Dodger: Such as Iain Duncan Smith are finding out not to be an idiot while being recorded.

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week

Just over 35,000 more people need to sign it. ;P

"A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies."

We don't have that. Even if governments were not involved... we'd still have monopolies, as we do now manipulating the market, bribing suppliers to reject competitors.

Iamon lyme: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_19/b4177022147138.htm

"..... Since 2002, Germany has doubled its capacity to generate wind power and has 21,000 turbines producing 7.5% of the nation's electricity. That compares with only about 1% in the U.S. The use of wind has lowered wholesale electricity prices in Germany by as much as 5 billion euros some years, says a study by Poeyry, a Helsinki-based consultant. Spanish prices fell at an annualized rate of 26% in the first quarter due to surging wind and hydroelectric production.

Since October 2008, the abundance of wind power has led to periods where German customers were paid rates that sometimes reached 500.02 euros ($665) a megawatt-hour, or about as much power as used by a small factory or 1,000 homes in 60 minutes.

One solution: Tying power markets together, allowing temporary surpluses in one area to flow toward electricity-poor zones. That's now done between the Netherlands, France, and Belgium; Germany plans to join them on Sept. 7.

Storing electricity may be another fix. In Scandinavia, Danish wind power pumps water into Norwegian and Swedish reservoirs; the water is later released to drive hydroelectric plants. Until there's more integration like that and better transmission grids, expect more Germans to sleep with the lights on... ."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18979330
"The measures should also reduce the impact on household energy bills, it said, saving £5-£6 a year on average. Under the current arrangements £44 of the average household bill would go towards renewables in 2013-14, rising to £50 in 2016-17. Under the new subsidy levels, that will be £6 less in 2013-4, £5 less in 2014-5, but will be £1 higher in 2015-6 and £3 higher in 2016-7.

Energy firms pass on the cost of investing in new cleaner generation to consumers, and MPs on the Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee warned earlier this month that cutting subsidies too fast could increase bills. "

Our government is subsidising the energy firms to keep them from passing on the costs to bill payers as, a cut in stock prices is too much for them to handle???

Or...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/20/coalition-u-turn-nuclear-energy-subsidies

".....The government is already facing a crisis over its hopes for a fleet of new reactors to replace ageing generators. This week French company GDF Suez warned it would need increased financial incentives, including a strengthened price on carbon dioxide, to go ahead with its building plans. This followed the shock cancellation by German companies E.ON and RWE npower, partners in the Horizon consortium, of their plans to build new plants at Wylfa, Wales and Oldbury, Gloucestershire.

Ministers apparently plan to argue that the proposed support system is not a direct subsidy and does not favour nuclear but puts it on the same footing as other forms of low-carbon energy – chiefly renewables, which will also receive a feed-in tariff. A top official from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) told the Guardian: "We have made it very clear that this is about low-carbon energy in total. This is not a subsidy for nuclear power."

But the plans are likely to come under severe attack in the European parliament. The Guardian understands that the Greens in Europe are preparing to take legal action against the government, arguing that the plans amount to state aid for nuclear...."

Nuclear is being subsidised by renewable energy... sorry, "low carbon".

My point from the Guardian story. There are no clear figures.

(V): no doubt!

(V): "No... to the cost of manufacture of solar charging points and the installation of them. One bad corporation does not mean they are all bad and can't work."

Can you give me an example of a large scale solar or wind power plant that is able to supply power to the general public, and survive without ongoing government subsidies? I'm not talking about good vs bad companies here, I'm talking about the economic feasibility of a wind/solar power company working soley within the confines of the free enterprise system. Solyndra was going to fail whether they tried to make it work or not, because even with a hefty start up subsidy the company wouldn't be able to sustain their operation for very long. The top brass at Solyndra knew this, so they didn't bother to tough it out until their company failed... they did the only sensible thing, they took the money and ran. It may not have been the honorable thing to do, but when you have a president as naive as Obama this sort of thing is bound to happen.

By the way, if you want to quibble over what 'free' means in the context of free enterprise, I leave it to you to figure that out.

Iamon lyme: But we don't have a 'free' market.

Iamon lyme: No... to the cost of manufacture of solar charging points and the installation of them. One bad corporation does not mean they are all bad and can't work. It's like the difference between Amazon (big tax dodger) and a UK based business who pays their way.

"....It used a much larger converter of course..."

So it looks like a many smaller cell conversion system being fed by a main water tank could work for a standard sized vehicle. ;P

"You do realise the downside to this though, don't you? Now we will be fighting wars for distilled water and baking soda."

Not for the water at least.. it's not hard to do at home. Moonshiner's have been doing it for... well, a long time.

Iamon lyme: "Yes, they are not free to build.. but that was not the point."

Okay, you meant solar powered charging stations are not free. Not only that, but it's doubtful they could pay for themselves and make a profit without tax payer "contributions". That was MY point. Solyndra was given a big government subsidy to get started, but it all ended very quickly with the CEO and top brass giving themselves big retirement packages. How long was Solyndra in business?

Yeah, solar powered charging stations costing someone a pretty dime (if not the people using it) wasn't your point, I got that.

So what WAS your point? That even if an enterprise can't sustain itself in a free market it can still do what it was designed to do?

(V): "Your saying no private business is willing to entertain financing them?"

Not only just willing, it's already starting to happen.

"Yes, they are not free to build.. but that was not the point."

Who is not free to build what? You can't mean not free to build and market HHO converters, because it's already happening. Some will be on the market this summer. Who can stop them?

"I'm not sure that is possible yet as a street level device."

If you mean running a car on only water, that's already happened as well. Saw a video where someone was able to run a pick up truck with no gas in the tank. It was even able to accelerate going uphill without losing pressure. It used a much larger converter of course, but it fit in the back of the truck with no problem.

"Wow, it's legit!"

[ .... Just say I believe you V ;P ]

I do now... I'm a believer in trust but verify. When I saw water in glass jars my first thought was the cold fusion hoax a few years back... cold fusion supposedly taking place in glass jars.

You do realise the downside to this though, don't you? Now we will be fighting wars for distilled water and baking soda.

Iamon lyme: Your saying no private business is willing to entertain financing them? Yes, they are not free to build.. but that was not the point.

"If a car could run only on the hydrogen from it's own water supply, and channel the water by product back into that water supply"

I'm not sure that is possible yet as a street level device.

"for gathering hydrogen from water is about as effective as extracting a little bit of power from the cars own intertia and feeding that back into the electrical system."

No, the gasses fed to the engine are changed. Our atmosphere is mainly nitrogen and does not burn. HHO being two molecules of hydrogen and one of oxygen means the gasses are more reactive, hence more power for the same amount of fuel.

"without ever having to fill a hydrogen tank from time to time, then you would essentially have a perpetual motion machine."

No, the water would need topping up and the electrodes will only last so long.

"Wow, it's legit!"

.... Just say I believe you V ;P

Artful Dodger: I think he was an idiot well before he became a democrat!! lol

(V): Wow, it's legit! And it's catching on quick. By this summer some HHO water converters will be on the market in someplace called Bear County... I didn't pay attention to the state this is in, so I'll go back to find the video again. They'll sell for about 1,500 hundred dollars, but there are much cheaper ones you can put together on your own. I suspect the homemade ones will be cropping up all over the place.

(V): "but last time I checked you have to pay for that power. No one is going to give it away for free"

[ Some are. New solar powered charging stations for electric cars are popping up in various places. ]

I stand corrected. Solar powered charging stations cost nothing to build or install and maintain. It's all free. And taxes go down instead of up to not pay for those stations.

"The cars carried the water in jars with the necessary electricity coming from the cars own power system to create HHO. No need for a tank to carry the gases.. it's an on demand system.... the videos showed that!!"

When I have time I'll look at those videos and then do a little research of my own. But I suspect having an onboard system for gathering hydrogen from water is about as effective as extracting a little bit of power from the cars own intertia and feeding that back into the electrical system. If a car could run only on the hydrogen from it's own water supply, and channel the water by product back into that water supply, without ever having to fill a hydrogen tank from time to time, then you would essentially have a perpetual motion machine.

But even if we are only a few years away from a practical self sustaining hydrogen car, how do you propose we keep any of our aircraft in the air using only hydrogen power? Maybe we could convince the entire world to give up air travel. Also, there are products we use every day made from oil that have nothing to do with burning fossil fuels. I suppose we could live without those too. And when global warming finally kicks in, we can give up wearing clothes... we can use parasols for when we're out in the hot scorching sun.

(V): Well Al is an idiot.

Artful Dodger: So would I. If police officials are stating it works......

But... imo, it'd just turn into "lets bring up Al Gore time" :/

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week

This petition calls for Iain Duncan Smith, the current Work and Pensions Secretary, to prove his claim of being able to live on £7.57 a day, or £53 a week.

On Monday's Today Programme David Bennett, a market trader, said that after his housing benefit had been cut, he lives on £53 per week. The next interviewee was Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, who was defending the changes. The interviewer then asked him if he could live on this amount. He replied: "If I had to, I would."

This petition calls on Iain Duncan Smith to live on this budget for at least one year. This would help realise the conservative party`s current mantra that "We are all in this together".

This would mean a 97% reduction in his current income, which is £1,581.02 a week or £225 a day after tax* [Source: The Telegraph]

Please join me.

>>>>>> Currently over 427,000 signatures with only 500,000 needed.

(V): Well I'd want to find out the truth behind the technology and if it proved true, I'd urge congress to pass some regulations OR I'd have the Regulatory agency pass something AND I'd offer financial incentives for car manufactures to create the technology in their cars. Money talks.

Remember Solyndra.

Iamon lyme: .... The cars carried the water in jars with the necessary electricity coming from the cars own power system to create HHO. No need for a tank to carry the gases.. it's an on demand system.... the videos showed that!!

"but last time I checked you have to pay for that power. No one is going to give it away for free"

Some are. New solar powered charging stations for electric cars are popping up in various places.

... you could use a manure powered battery to charge your cars battery.
... Dynamo attached to a bike can charge.
... small windmill (same as used to pump water on farms) could generate power.
... focused reflector system..
... etc.

;P

(V): "Like the 12V system used to run the lights, stereo, air con, etc that's attached to the car battery?"

We've learned how to tap into the cars own inertia and convert that back into electricity, but it's not like a perpetual motion machine... inertia can only give back a small part of the energy used to run the car.

I was talking about the power needed to get the fuel for running the car. These cars don't run on water, they run on the hydrogen we get from water. It takes power to separate the hydrogen from water, that's how we get the fuel for powering the car. The cars engine causes hydrogen to bond to oxygen (converting it back into water) which creates enough energy for powering the car. In a worse case scenario you would need to burn coal to power the turbines that make the electricity used to extract the hydrogen from water. Getting the juice from a hydroelectric plant is more environmentally friendly, but last time I checked you have to pay for that power. No one is going to give it away for free... people who work for the power companies need to eat too.

My point is we don't need to use energy to create fossil fuels because they already exist. It's less expensive to get that fuel and process it than to create a fuel like hydrogen. In the future, if technology is allowed to progress naturally, I don't doubt we will have sources of energy that make fossil fuels obsolete. But we don't live in the future... not yet. <(:op

Iamon lyme: Like the 12V system used to run the lights, stereo, air con, etc that's attached to the car battery?

"Government interferes in this process in an effort to speed up what would naturally occur anyway, and in effect can (unintentionally) cause technological advancement to slow down."

... yes.... can. Sometimes not though. Concorde was a government run project.

Artful Dodger: But that would be classed by many in the USA as government interference... wouldn't it!!

"I suspect that hidden in the secrets of science are a vast number of ways to produce clean energy (or cleaner energy) and we ought to be exploring some of these claims on a grand scale."

Grand scale manure batteries supplying cheap energy to remote towns who have lots of cattle near. :P

They do work, but I think the thought of it for some is toooo retro.

(V): I've said this before, the reason we've been able to advance so fast technologically is because private enterprise was allowed to do what it does naturally. Government interferes in this process in an effort to speed up what would naturally occur anyway, and in effect can (unintentionally) cause technological advancement to slow down. Not only that, but it can also create unforeseen conditions and problems in other areas of society as well.

It's called the law of unintentional consequences, and we've already seen what can happen when we tried to make some beneficial changes in nature. An Island somewhere has too many of one kind of non indigenous animal, an invasive species that may have got there aboard a merchant ship. So we decide to correct the problem by introducing another species that will prey on the one that shouldn't have been there to begin with. But now the predatory species has taken over the Island, and is creating unforeseen problems as bad as or maybe worse than the species we were trying to control. Overreaching governments are notorious at doing the same thing, interjecting themselves into a natural process in an effort to control it.

(V): "The pollutants pumped out into the air never disappear into thin air, as we might like to believe."

I said pollutants dissipate. I did not say they disappear.