Allan Savory: How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change

[jon ryan]

Can you do the link to climatologists who support your views first? Then we'll do the philosophy.

 

[SimonH]

So.. give you the answer first, then we'll come up with a question?

Seriously, which "views" on "what" are you referring to?

 

[u8myufo]

The idea that man exists on this planet only as a cancer or a virus is IMVHO a very twisted and very wrong perception of our role on this blue marble.

Sorry I missed this bit Simon, although I never made that statement I am interested on your own personal views. If I was to ask myself that very same question all I can come up with is to exist, just like any other life form on this planet. But whilst we are existing there does seem to be a heavy price to pay which is what my concerns are all about. We do seem to think we have the right to intervene with a lot of things in this world as we have the knowledge and means to be able do it. So what exactly would you say our purpose is?

 

[SimonH]

Rich, first and foremost I don't think that we're "unnatural". Some view the earth as "there's nature, then there's us" as if we're in opposition. I don't see it that way. Everything we do - EVERYthing - is part of the natural order.

But that doesn't mean that I'm not concerned about man's impact. Everything comes at a price - man moves in on a territory and other things have to move out, just like a lion eats an antelope and some baby antelopes starve. Nature is cruel, but it's nature. And we're very much a part of it.

 

[u8myufo]

Rich, first and foremost I don't think that we're "unnatural". Some view the earth as "there's nature, then there's us" as if we're in opposition. I don't see it that way. Everything we do - EVERYthing - is part of the natural order.

But that doesn't mean that I'm not concerned about man's impact. Everything comes at a price - man moves in on a territory and other things have to move out, just like a lion eats an antelope and some baby antelopes starve. Nature is cruel, but it's nature. And we're very much a part of it.

That is fair enough I suppose, surely the difference is though that we have the ability to be a bit more rational with our decisions. Yes animals kill for food but in most cases that is always kept in check. I could come to your house and excavate a 2mtr x 2mtr trench under the footings, I could easily do a few more. But at what point would you realise that it is not safe to carry on and tell me to stop, this is my arguement.

 

[viv1969]

*sigh*.

OK. I'm having my gall bladder removed in a few weeks. Should I go to

a/ A consultant surgeon with expertise in cholecystectomy

b/ A zoologist

If you can link to any climatologists who support your views, please link to them. Or do you think that all opinions, regardless of expertise, are equal?

Well, I know which waiting room i'd want to be in.

 

[SimonH]

That is fair enough I suppose, surely the difference is though that we have the ability to be a bit more rational with our decisions. Yes animals kill for food but in most cases that is always kept in check. I could come to your house and excavate a 2mtr x 2mtr trench under the footings, I could easily do a few more. But at what point would you realise that it is not safe to carry on and tell me to stop, this is my arguement.

I don't disagree at all. As you say, we have the ability to be more rational with our decisions. The point Matt Ridley makes, and which is genuinely born out in the numbers, is that the more prosperous we are, the more we're able to CHOOSE to be more rational and to have less impact. The better we become at farming, the more able we are to CHOOSE to use less land for farming; the more we have progressed, the more efficient we have become.

I love the idea of a simpler life, but the fact is that unit for unit of energy, a camp fire is more harmful to the environment (IF CO2 is evil) and less effective than an incandescent bulb or a Calor gas heater. Whatever lovely idealistic thoughts float over the eco-activists' minds, the truth is that wind farms decimate bird and bat populations. The truth is that solar panels contain heavy metals and are toxic to the environment, and in order to encourage investment by reducing overheads, we deliberately have NO regulations in place for the safe disposal of damaged/worn-out photovoltaic cells.

 

[jon ryan]

Why is it that so many experts agree on global warming and its causes and so few dissent? And that most of the dissenters are people like Ridley, Corbyn, and Monckton who appear to have done little or no academic work in climatology? Why do no scientific bodies of significance hold contrary views? Why have many - such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - altered their views towards warming, but no such bodies have move in the other direction?

Indeed consensus can be wrong, but when scientists stop arguing it's usually a sign that they are in general agreement. Science is not an exact science. Science can't prove the existence of gravity. But I think there is general agreement that it exists.

 

[SimonH]

Jon, I hate to have to repeat myself, but the argument that "most experts agree" is an anti-scientific argument. But the simple answer, Jon, is that you should follow the money.

 

[jon ryan]

Jon, I hate to have to repeat myself, but the argument that "most experts agree" is an anti-scientific argument. But the simple answer, Jon, is that you should follow the money.

I prefer to follow the experts. Were I to follow the money, I'd have my gall bladder problem cured by crystal therapy and homoeopathy. Much cheaper and their arguments are sooo convincing.

I've been in Rome for the last week or so. At the Basilica of Santa Maria degli Angeli they have an exhibition in honour of Galileo. Lots of stuff about what a good catholic he was, and how he, they claim, kept his faith despite being a scientist.

For some reason the exhibit fails to mention that he was branded a heretic, threatened with torture by the Inquisition, his writings were suppressed and he was kept under house arrest by the church until he died. This for proving a heliocentric solar system. People who take a faith position do tend to become irrational when confronted by science. It took the Roman church until 1992 to finally admit that they got it wrong.

Arguing with people who hold faith positions is futile, so this is my final comment here.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Jon, I hate to have to repeat myself, but the argument that "most experts agree" is an anti-scientific argument. But the simple answer, Jon, is that you should follow the money.

But it remains a solid mathematical statistics argument; Bayesian inference.

I'm always cautious when I see the highlighting of logical fallacies creep into a debate. Here's a quote I stumbled upon in the comments of a debate about climate change that I rather like: "Most fallacies aren’t really fallacies when you reinterpret them as Bayesian reasons to give an idea more credence rather than iron-clad syllogisms. Without the “argument from authority” and the “ad hominem fallacy”, you would either never get lunch or you’d give all your money to Nigerian spammers."

Having said that, the more pressing question for me is whether we can afford inaction? If there's a chance that our actions are adversely threatening our way of life, along with all the other species on the planet, then is there good reason why we shouldn't seek to adjust our own behaviour in an attempt to halt or reverse the possible damage our actions have already caused?

That's where I see the division in this argument. There's a debate over causation - which could go on and on - and then there's a debate about whether we should or shouldn't act to address the change.

 

[SimonH]

I prefer to follow the experts. Were I to follow the money, I'd have my gall bladder problem cured by crystal therapy and homoeopathy. Much cheaper and their arguments are sooo convincing.

I've been in Rome for the last week or so. At the Basilica of Santa Maria degli Angeli they have an exhibition in honour of Galileo. Lots of stuff about what a good catholic he was, and how he, they claim, kept his faith despite being a scientist.

For some reason the exhibit fails to mention that he was branded a heretic, threatened with torture by the Inquisition, his writings were suppressed and he was kept under house arrest by the church until he died. This for proving a heliocentric solar system. People who take a faith position do tend to become irrational when confronted by science. It took the Roman church until 1992 to finally admit that they got it wrong.

Arguing with people who hold faith positions is futile, so this is my final comment here.

You somehow missed the point that Galileo was running against the consensus position and against its authority - the very things you use to promote climate orthodoxy. If you think science is not susceptible to the same problems as religion, think again.

I view modern environmentalism as very much akin to a religious ideology, replete with dogma, magical thinking, self-flagellation and human sacrifice, and a plethora of other quasi-religious elements. YMMV but I've met very few grassroots environmental campaigners that don't hug trees or the stones at Avebury, or on some similar level worship Gaia.

 

[SimonH]

But it remains a solid mathematical statistics argument; Bayesian inference.

I'm always cautious when I see the highlighting of logical fallacies creep into a debate. Here's a quote I stumbled upon in the comments of a debate about climate change that I rather like: "Most fallacies aren’t really fallacies when you reinterpret them as Bayesian reasons to give an idea more credence rather than iron-clad syllogisms. Without the “argument from authority” and the “ad hominem fallacy”, you would either never get lunch or you’d give all your money to Nigerian spammers."

Though it's tempting, I'm going to resist playing with probablistics. Suffice it to say that I'm cautious of applying inductive reasoning, which I think has less of a place in hard sciences such as physics or chemistry than it does in softer sciences such as sociology or climatology. I think that at, all said, if an argument cannot be made without depending on logical fallacies to shore it up, that argument is not worth making.

Having said that, the more pressing question for me is whether we can afford inaction? If there's a chance that our actions are adversely threatening our way of life, along with all the other species on the planet, then is there good reason why we shouldn't seek to adjust our own behaviour in an attempt to halt or reverse the possible damage our actions have already caused?

That's where I see the division in this argument. There's a debate over causation - which could go on and on - and then there's a debate about whether we should or shouldn't act to address the change.

The latest IPCC report (AR5) draft that I've seen is certainly expressing more uncertainty with respect to causation, increasingly acknowledging the potential for solar and cosmic influences on our climate as well as increased recognition of natural, internal variability. This is good, but not before time.

It's also not good for the call to action. Attributing causality to man is fundamental in the call for action to mitigate against climate change. Recent papers are increasingly pointing towards lower climate sensitivity (the effect of doubling the amount of atmospheric CO2, expected to occur around 2100) and positive feedbacks which have been predicted (and which would accelerate warming to "dangerous" levels) are conspicuous by their absence in observations.

The question about whether we can afford not to act has to be considered in relation to the cost of action and the net effect of that action. It is estimated that current EU regulation to increase our dependence on wind, solar and other renewables - if we could afford to meet those targets, which reasonably we can't - would slow the rate of increased atmospheric CO2 by just 2 weeks by 2100. That, I'm afraid, is a profoundly huge waste of money. The question isn't whether we can afford NOT to act, the question is.. is it WORTH the cost?

Bear in mind that this is my position on mitigation. I have many fewer issues with adaptation, but that isn't what this is really about.

 

[TriggerHappy]

I can see by the tone with which you write that this is an utterly frivolous discussion so I'm going to bow out now before wasting any more time on it. Enjoy

 

[SimonH]

Whaat?! LOL! Why is it frivolous? It's the most important question of our day!.. or so I keep getting told..

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

I'm enjoying this discussion. Keep it up fellas.
My own opinion : Industrial (human) gas (any and all of them) production is insignificant compared to natural effects on atmospheric composition ...
Also : atmospheric composition isn't the overriding factor in climate fluctuations.
Therefore : reduce pollution globally if feasible but don't make stupid excuses for doing so, like global warming.

 

[SimonH]

Can't actually argue with any of that, Ulfric.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

We disagree on that video then. .lets leave it their if we can then.

Interesting points you and everyone are raising, sorry if im missing a few, not much time tonight but though Id better say something ...For me, its kinda simpler, Like I've been told for twenty years now by those raising concerns that we might have global warming and then a list of effects, such as, Ice sheets melting back, the gulf stream slowing or even stopping, average world temperatures rising, small islands disappearing under rising sea levels and general weather changes from the usual to the unusual.

This is all happening apparently, so im told, ...Certainly I do think our passed actions of consumption could easily tip the natural previous balance, we are that massive an organism as a whole right....Even in my life times weather vain Ive seen our brit weather change dramatically over say the last 5-10 years, winters are mild, flooding everywhere, Thames barrier up more times every year than it has been in a decade type of real.

Maybe my opinions been swayed and warped by biased scientific opinions, but may be not. Its seems to me that global warming theory is still strong and proving itself and its now a majority of scientists rather than the old minority. Certainly I can believe my own eyes and they say yes some thing has changed dramatically , so I'm inclined to believe the twenty years worth of scientific concerns, if only because they seem to be proving true to the theory.

 

[SimonH]

I feel that the most important thing for me to point out is that your opinion has NOT been swayed by biased scientific opinions. Though your opinion may have been swayed, it isn't scientific opinion that has swayed you, it's sensationalism by political/ideological activists and headline-hungry media. And scientific opinion (the opinion of someone whose job is scientific research) itself should be separated from scientific evidence, i.e. the data/evidence they collect by scientific observation.

On the subject of scientific observation, it's imperative to understand that this trumps anecdotal evidence and it trumps computer modelling. What concerns me is that there is very little public understanding of the differences between them, and even more that the things we fear for the future are NOT based on observational evidence. What I argue is that, if it isn't based on observational evidence, it isn't science. That's the Scientific Method, and it is crucial to good science.

There's nothing unusual about the weather in the past 5-10 years, or even longer. But weather isn't climate. The problem with climate science is that it's made itself un-falsifiable, and that is the mark of all fine, upstanding religions, and is definitively the antithesis of science: If there's a drought, it's global warming, but if it rains a lot then it's climate change; If it's a mild winter with no snow then it's global warming, but if it's a harsh winter then it's climate change, and so on... http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm (beware link links may contain excessive usage of "could", "might", "potentially", "conceivably", "may".. and may contain nuts.)

Weather is weather and the reason that the Met Office can't predict what it will do more than about 5 days into the future (and sometimes much less) is PRECISELY because it's unpredictable. It's chaotic, and we don't HAVE a sufficient understanding of what drives it. And again, if a scientist allows you to gain the impression, either deliberately or by omission, that they DO understand sufficiently how our climate works then it is not as scientists that they are functioning. Science definitively includes ranges of uncertainty, and to fail to express actual uncertainties is to fail to communicate the truth of science. THIS is the history of climate science, and it is damning.

It's unfortunate that we can't believe what we're told on face value. We should be able to, but we're stuck with the fact that newspapers don't want to publish "We can stop worrying!" stories. We have to rely on a bit of critical thinking. Next time you see a headline that reads "climate change caused worst storm in 70 years!" stop and ask yourself.. what caused the storm, 70 years ago, that was worse than this? If you see a headline "Hottest March 18th on record!" ask how long the record is, and consider that there might be a hundred year old hotter record for March 17th. Just consider that it's just possible that catastrophic climate change is like Weapons of Mass Destruction.. fear of the existence is all that's needed. It isn't actually necessary for it to be a reality to get you wound up and in support of radical and drastic change.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Excellent post!

 

[u8myufo]

I feel that the most important thing for me to point out is that your opinion has NOT been swayed by biased scientific opinions. Though your opinion may have been swayed, it isn't scientific opinion that has swayed you, it's sensationalism by political/ideological activists and headline-hungry media. And scientific opinion (the opinion of someone whose job is scientific research) itself should be separated from scientific evidence, i.e. the data/evidence they collect by scientific observation.

On the subject of scientific observation, it's imperative to understand that this trumps anecdotal evidence and it trumps computer modelling. What concerns me is that there is very little public understanding of the differences between them, and even more that the things we fear for the future are NOT based on observational evidence. What I argue is that, if it isn't based on observational evidence, it isn't science. That's the Scientific Method, and it is crucial to good science.

There's nothing unusual about the weather in the past 5-10 years, or even longer. But weather isn't climate. The problem with climate science is that it's made itself un-falsifiable, and that is the mark of all fine, upstanding religions, and is definitively the antithesis of science: If there's a drought, it's global warming, but if it rains a lot then it's climate change; If it's a mild winter with no snow then it's global warming, but if it's a harsh winter then it's climate change, and so on... http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm (beware link links may contain excessive usage of "could", "might", "potentially", "conceivably", "may".. and may contain nuts.)

Weather is weather and the reason that the Met Office can't predict what it will do more than about 5 days into the future (and sometimes much less) is PRECISELY because it's unpredictable. It's chaotic, and we don't HAVE a sufficient understanding of what drives it. And again, if a scientist allows you to gain the impression, either deliberately or by omission, that they DO understand sufficiently how our climate works then it is not as scientists that they are functioning. Science definitively includes ranges of uncertainty, and to fail to express actual uncertainties is to fail to communicate the truth of science. THIS is the history of climate science, and it is damning.

It's unfortunate that we can't believe what we're told on face value. We should be able to, but we're stuck with the fact that newspapers don't want to publish "We can stop worrying!" stories. We have to rely on a bit of critical thinking. Next time you see a headline that reads "climate change caused worst storm in 70 years!" stop and ask yourself.. what caused the storm, 70 years ago, that was worse than this? If you see a headline "Hottest March 18th on record!" ask how long the record is, and consider that there might be a hundred year old hotter record for March 17th. Just consider that it's just possible that catastrophic climate change is like Weapons of Mass Destruction.. fear of the existence is all that's needed. It isn't actually necessary for it to be a reality to get you wound up and in support of radical and drastic change.

That was a mouthfull Simon Imo Nature drives our weather, and Nature is something that cannot be controlled, that in itself buggers up man because he is powerless to stop it no matter how clever we think we are.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

..... THIS is the history of climate science, and it is damning.

... Just consider that it's just possible that catastrophic climate change is like Weapons of Mass Destruction.. fear of the existence is all that's needed. It isn't actually necessary for it to be a reality to get you wound up and in support of radical and drastic change.

Ive often argued on here we're being manipulated by fear, just look how the banking crisis is panning out.

You could easily be right as I've considered before, it could be just one great blind bandwagon science grants rush verses media conspiracy backup.
If you are right where does this leave us? Do we ignore it all and carry on regardless.

Isn't this the question asked many years ago, what is happening, is it us, and can we have any influence?
Isnt this the reason for twenty years worth of scientific concern? ...and do we now dismiss those concerns because the weather science has proven to be' unscientific' in the whole so far.

No matter the possibilities of error we can only do our best, learn as much as we can, then act at the earlies possible moment in a bid to accomplish some sort of leverage before it spirals out of our normal envisage.

 

[Organnyx]

There is very little doubt that AGW is a fact (about the same certainty that the earth isn't flat), BUT there are some vociferous people (mostly funded by the likes of the Koch brothers or Exxon) who try to claim the opposite, in order to further BAU (business as usual).

Let us imagine for a ghastly acid-flash minute that the "deniers" are right, and AGW is an invention of bedwetting leftie loonies.... it actually makes not a jot or tittle of difference - in the simplest of terms, there's too many of us, doing too much stuff. This is a finite planet in terms of resources, and capacity to absorb damage - we are already seeing the loss of many species, and there's no denying we live as if we had 3 planets (the Americans as if they had 5)- we need to firstly get a grip on runaway population growth, then we need to look very carefully at what unbridled global capitalism is wreaking upon the earth, not least in the catastrophic methods of modern "farming", which use gobbets of irreplaceable natural reserves to produce chemical-riddled rubbish, and vast profits for the likes of Monsanto and Cargill, whilst despoiling and impoverishing the soil, and toxifying the whole environment.

We're toast as a species unless we get a grip on our stupid and profligate ways -"business as usual" is killing the environment and everything in it, to suggest otherwise is barking bonkers........

 

[DorsetDude]

Allan Savory? Really? He's just made that name up to be the US version of Alan Sugar. (for people who dont like jam)

 

[SimonH]

Isn't this the question asked many years ago, what is happening, is it us, and can we have any influence?
Isnt this the reason for twenty years worth of scientific concern? ...and do we now dismiss those concerns because the weather science has proven to be' unscientific' in the whole so far.

Yup. Asking the question is the right thing to do. Even though it's clear that in some circles the science has been compromised by political activism, it doesn't mean that there is no value in studying climate. There seems little will to clean up house, though, which I'm concerned in the long term will harm all science generally.

There is very little doubt that AGW is a fact (about the same certainty that the earth isn't flat), BUT there are some vociferous people (mostly funded by the likes of the Koch brothers or Exxon) who try to claim the opposite, in order to further BAU (business as usual).

I agree that there's little doubt that AGW is a reality, but there is very little agreement on its significance, less still its impact. But the act of over-playing the presence and extent of AGW while simultaneously underplaying the uncertainty surrounding its real-world impact - particularly with regard to the purported impending climate catastrophe - is not at the hands of "Big Oil". What has happened over the last 3 and a half years, since "Climategate", is that this lie of omission about inherent uncertainties - the exposed lie that "the science is settled" - has begun to unravel. The realisation that we have been misled about how sure we are about the harm we're doing is why climate science is now haemorrhaging confidence. The real worry is that this loss of confidence will infect areas of science which do have integrity. As an advocate of science, this is my main concern, and is why I am as vociferous as I am about the need to cleanse science and cut out the cancer of advocacy.

Let us imagine for a ghastly acid-flash minute that the "deniers" are right, and AGW is an invention of bedwetting leftie loonies.... it actually makes not a jot or tittle of difference - in the simplest of terms, there's too many of us, doing too much stuff. This is a finite planet in terms of resources, and capacity to absorb damage - we are already seeing the loss of many species, and there's no denying we live as if we had 3 planets (the Americans as if they had 5)- we need to firstly get a grip on runaway population growth, then we need to look very carefully at what unbridled global capitalism is wreaking upon the earth, not least in the catastrophic methods of modern "farming", which use gobbets of irreplaceable natural reserves to produce chemical-riddled rubbish, and vast profits for the likes of Monsanto and Cargill, whilst despoiling and impoverishing the soil, and toxifying the whole environment.

Nahh. Two hundred years of history have shown Malthus to have been wrong and there is not a shred of evidence that Neo-Malthusians are right today. History has demonstrated, year on year, that human ingenuity outstrips procreation and consumption every time and that doomsday predictions such as this have no more validity than Mother Shipton or Nostradamus.

We're toast as a species unless we get a grip on our stupid and profligate ways -"business as usual" is killing the environment and everything in it, to suggest otherwise is barking bonkers........

I see a lot of superlative but can't see any substance, sorry. I'm much more interested in the science than the emotive.

 

[SimonH]

Allan Savory? Really? He's just made that name up to be the US version of Alan Sugar. (for people who dont like jam)

LMAO!!

 

[DorsetDude]

LMAO!!

 

[Organnyx]

"human ingenuity outstrips procreation and consumption every time and that doomsday predictions such as this have no more validity than Mother Shipton or Nostradamus" - ahhh a "business as usual" merchant.........as has been shown time and again, we cannot afford to ignore these predictions of "eco meltdown"- here's a very good explanation - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

And for those who seem to think that population is nothing to worry about, here's some simple maths - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdOk521m9WA

If anyone needs further evidence of the need to curb our excesses, look at the demise of many species, the poisoning of the oceans, and the despoilation of our farmland. As I've said, this is a finite planet, with finite resources, we are living on the false promise that "science will find a way" - I frankly don't believe it, and we cannot afford to take the risks suggested by the arrogant and cocksure, we are gambling with our fate as a species

And before someone mutters about "emoting" - it is entirely reasonable to emote about serious matters -mankind is standing between the rails, ipod on full (listening to the empty promises of the capitalist ponzi scheme), back turned, whilst the express of eco-armageddon hurtles towards us - we need to yell very loudly "turn round and look what is about to hit you"

 

[SimonH]

Martin, entertaining though it may be, the first video is a very poor exploration of the Precautionary Principle. Everything listed in B:True should also be in A:True and A:False, since the cost of A:True/A:False also results in the consequences in B:True. It's also flawed in that there is no justification for the smiley in A:True because mitigation is not effective. Just costly.

Your second video is VERY old and doesn't fully account for the evidence that various factors, including economic prosperity, directly results in a fall in population growth rate. The problem with "simple maths" is that they're too simplistic. Population is expected to peak at around 9 billion around 2070 (Lutz, W., Sanderson, W., and Scherbov, S. (2001) The end of world population growth. Nature, 412, pp.543–545.).

 

[Organnyx]

I despair - you presumably airily dismiss such things as the demise of the coral reefs, and much that lives in the sea, the cutting down of the rain forests to grow GM frankencrap, and seem to be of the impression that we can continue despoiling the planet at an ever-increasing rate, and for some reason (because a few large companies have misused science to "prove" their points), everything will be absolutely fine, because "science will find an answer" - do I really have to list all the things done in the name of science that have been plain wrong?

Perhaps there is a lack of the perspective that age brings - in my lifetime I can remember a time that a short drive over the Downs at night would result in a windscreen liberally plastered with dead moths and other insects, nowadays, you hardly see one! I can remember the photos my family took for the local camera club competitions - a favourite subject was the plume of birds following the plough - nowadays I live in the nearby countryside, and not a bird is to be seen when they plough (the land is stone dead!) - I fondly remember vast murmurations of starlings over my home town, nowadays there's only a few stragglers left - I could go on, but I think you get the drift- there have been vast changes at a local, personal level in my lifetime - we are extremely foolish to try to dismiss the evidence of our own eyes.....

Here's something that will probably be dismissed with another airy wave of the hand - here's a talk about another manifestation of how this wonderful "scientific" way of doing things affects us all - http://fora.tv/2008/07/21/Ken_Cook_Ten_Americans

 

[SimonH]

Yes, you despair. I know.

And no, I do not airily dismiss anything. Far from it.

As I've said before, I will react to a tangible, quantified threat and not merely a perceived threat which has experienced nothing more than a glancing side-swipe with reality.