Graham Readfern explains how a thorough demolition of Ian Plimer is now in Hansard:
Back in October last year, the Senate’s Environment and Communications Legislation Committee agreed to table a letter from Cardinal Pell which quoted heavily from Heaven and Earth to claim there were “good reasons for doubting that carbon dioxide causes warmer temperatures”.
After an early battle with Senator Ian McDonald, who didn’t want to give Dr Ayers time to respond, the bureau’s director finally managed to get his frustrations off his chest and onto the Hansard record. Dr Ayers’ explained how Cardinal Pell’s views on climate change were not only unsupported by the science but in some cases directly contradicted some of its core understandings. For example, he pointed out that Cardinal Pell had miraculously given nitrogen a new physical property:
At one stage [Cardinal Pell] lists greenhouse gases. Included in the list is the gas nitrogen. That is not a greenhouse gas; it is 78 per cent of the atmosphere. You cannot have people out there telling the public that nitrogen is a greenhouse gas, because it is not.
In his letter Pell even claimed that “the Bureau
has acknowledged the veracity of most of the factual statements set
out in my article”, so you can imagine how keen Ayers was to set the record straight.
Below I include Pell’s letter and Ayers’ response.
Cardinal Pell’s letter, from Hansard, Monday, 18 October 2010
Dear Senator Macdonald,
Thank you for your, letter received here on 16 April 2010, concerning
the questions you put to the Bureau of Meteorology at a Senate
Estimates committee hearing in February about an article I wrote on
climate change and published in the Sunday Telegraph on 7 February.
Please accept my apologies for the long delay in responding to your
interesting and encouraging letter. I am not surprised that the Bureau
has acknowledged the veracity of most of the factual statements set
out in my article, but I am pleased that it has done so.
I note however that the Bureau takes issue with my claims that
temperatures were higher in Roman times and the Middle Ages; and that
carbon dioxide levels were higher in most of history than they are
today and follow temperature rises rather than cause them. I
appreciate your offer to incorporate my response to the Bureau’s
comments into Hansard and offer these few lines for that purpose.
1) Temperatures (cf. Answer 7):
Professor Ian Plimer, in his book Heaven and Earth: Global Warming the
Missing Science (Connorcourt, 2009) summarises and cites the
scientific evidence from pollen studies, drill cores and lake
sediments to show that temperatures were 2 to 6Â°C warmer around the
world in the period from 250BC to 450AD (the Roman Warming). Records
left by those who lived at the time report citrus trees and grapes
being grown in England as far north as Hadrian’s Wall, and olive
groves on the Rhine. It was wetter and warmer, but sea levels were
also lower. Areas which are now either forests (because it is cooler)
or deserts (because it is drier –for example, the Roman provinces of
North Africa) were growing crops (pp. 59-60).
Professor Plimer (at pp. 63-72) also summarises and cites scientific
evidence which contradicts the Bureau’s claim that temperatures in
“recent decades have been warmer than those of the Middle Ages”. Tree
rings, boreholes, sediment cores from oceans and flood plains, pollen
studies, peat bogs, ice cores, fossils and carbon chemistry show that
temperatures were warmer throughout the world during the period
900-1300AD than they are now, by 1-2.5Â°C in different places. The
amount of land used for agriculture increased and extended to areas
which today are too cold to support farming. In Greenland, cattle and
sheep were run and crops like barley were grown. Grapevines were grown
in Newfoundland, and vineyards in Germany were grown up to 780 metres
above sea level, 220 metres higher than the maximum altitude for
growing grapes today. Tree lines in the mountains were higher, with
roots and stumps in the Polar Urals suggesting the tree line there was
30 metres higher in 1000AD than it is today. The North Atlantic was
free of ice, allowing the Vikings to travel to North America, and the
Baltic Sea supported tropical and sub-tropical marine plankton. Far
from leading to the disasters regularly predicted by some today,
warmer temperatures and higher rainfall during the Medieval Warming
enabled societies and economic life to flourish. In Europe it saw the
growth of cities, the establishment of universities, and a boom in
cathedral building. It was during this period that the temples of
Angkor Wat were built. China’s population doubled in the course of a
century and records from China and Japan also indicate that they
experienced warmer temperatures during this period. The Medieval
Warming was also good for the environment, with higher levels of water
in lakes and rivers and greater diversity in forests. The forests of
Ontario are still not as diverse and productive today as they were
during the Medieval Warming, because of the effects of the Little Ice
I have read of a meta-analysis of scientific articles on the Medieval
Warming Period which found the majority supporting the conclusion that
the Medieval Warming was a widespread phenomenon and produced
temperatures which were higher than today. However, at the time of
writing, I have not been able to source this meta-analysis.
2) Carbon dioxide (Cf. Answers 5, 6, 8 81.9)
In its answers on carbon dioxide, the Bureau claims that levels of CO2
are higher today than at any point in the last 800,000 years (although
it concedes that levels were 10 to 20 times higher up to 350 millions
years ago – Answer 8), that the increase in carbon dioxide has been
caused by “the burning of fossil fuels and land use change”, and that
the increase in CO2 levels “is responsible for most of the warming
observed since the mid 20th century” (Answer 6).
The Bureau refers to the data used by the IPPC, based on ice cores,
which shows that carbon dioxide levels have risen by 38 per cent since
1750. But this ice core data reflects hardly any of the irregular
variation of data on carbon dioxide in the air. Ernst-Georg Beck (In
“180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods”,
Energy and Environment 18:2 2007, pp. 259-82) has summarised “more
than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses” of carbon dioxide in the air
since 1812. He argues that the chemical data shows much greater
fluctuations of CO2 levels, with high levels occurring in 1825, 1857
and 1942, when carbon dioxide levels were more than 400ppm (compared
to 386ppm in 2009). The fluctuations of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere demonstrated by chemical analyses cast strong doubt on the
IPPC’s assumption that the level of CO2 in 1750 (less than 280ppm)
represents a preindustrial equilibrium which modern society has
destroyed. This is a questionable assumption. Nature is not static but
dynamic, non-linear and chaotic (as Professor Plimer has
observed). Beck also takes issue, as many others have, with the rigour
of the IPPC’s work, pointing out that on atmospheric CO2 it “only
examined about 10 per cent of the available literature” and claimed
“that only 1 per cent of all previous data could be viewed as
The Bureau highlights the role of climate model simulations in
establishing “the link between CO2 increase and warming”. Climate
modelling has become a very slender reed to rely on. Emeritus
Professor Garth Paltridge, an atmospheric physicist, a member of the
Australian Academy of Science, and former Chief Research Scientist
with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research, has pointed out that
“climate modelling cannot really be described as robust” because it
takes very little “fiddling with the individual feedback
representations to give temperature rises covering the whole range
from much less than 1 degree Celsius to infinity and beyond”. This is
one major reason why it is not possible to claim “that the science is
settled” (The Climate Caper, Connorcourt 2009, p. 28).
There are other good reasons for doubting that carbon dioxide causes
warmer temperatures. The main greenhouse gas is water vapour, which
accounts for 98 per cent of the greenhouse effect (I note in passing
that in the Bureau’s remarks on carbon dioxide and temperature
feedback in Answer 9, the role of water vapour is omitted). In
contrast, carbon dioxide derived from human activities such as burning
fossil fuels accounts for a mere 0.1 per cent of the greenhouse
effect. While there is a deal that remains unknown about the
quantities of carbon dioxide which are released naturally from the
earth (for example, from submarine volcanoes), CO2 from all sources,
together with nitrogen, methane and other gases contribute only 2 per
cent of the greenhouse effect. While there is a correlation between
increases in CO2 and rising temperatures between 1976 and 1998, there
was often no correlation at other times in the twentieth century. For
example, temperatures fell during the increased industrial activity of
the post World War II boom despite increased emissions of carbon
dioxide from burnt fossil fuel, and temperature rises from 1850 owe
more to the end of the Little Ice Age than to fossil fuels (Plimer p.
423-25 & 448).
Finally, I am happy to stand by my claim that increases in carbon
dioxide tend to follow rises in temperature, not cause them. Work on
ice cores from Antarctica has shown that rises in CO2 levels follow
rises in temperature, sometimes by as much as 200 to 800 years
later. This makes sense, since warmer weather accelerates the release
of carbon dioxide through increased weathering and the melting of ice
(Plimer pp. 226-28, 424-25 & 448). Thank you again for the
opportunity to respond to the Bureau of Meteorology’s responses to
your questions about my article. I would be happy to continue the
discussion and to answer any further queries you might have.
With every good wish,
ARCHBISHOP OF SYDNEY
CHAIR–Dr Ayers, we are all waiting with great anticipation to hear
your statement in relation to Cardinal Pell. Would you like to make
that statement now?
Dr Ayers–The issue from my point of view and why I sought leave to
respond is that the cardinal has, in terms of the letter we
incorporated in Hansard, made a number of propositions about aspects
of climate science that I have feel should not remain unanswered on
the public record in this place. I would have been happy to have
responded directly to the cardinal but he has not approached me and I
am not aware that he has spoken with any others in the climate science
community. I thought it was important to respond.
The difficulty with the assertions made in the cardinal’s letter is
that they are based not upon contention in the climate science field
but on a book written by Professor Plimer entitled Heaven and
Earth–Global Warming: The Missing Science. The contents of the book
are simply not scientific. I am concerned that the cardinal has been
misled by the contents of this book and I do not think it should stand
on the public record for that reason.
Why would I say this book is not science? It is not me who says it so
much, although I have read it myself; it has been widely reviewed by
people in the scientific arena and it has been very heavily criticised
for not presenting science but presenting a polemic from one
individual. It has not been scientifically peer reviewed. I would like
to step you through each of the assertions in Cardinal Pell’s
letter. The cardinal I do not anticipate would be an expert in these
fields of science, so he has quoted very heavily from this book and
the book is, frankly, misleading to all Australians in terms of what
it represents. I will read you once scientific review to give you a
sense of what one scientist from the University of New South Wales
said about the book. He said:
Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated
scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of
humans, by publishing this book. It is not “merely” atmospheric
scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It
would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography,
astronomy and statistics. Plimer’s book deserves to languish on the
shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of
Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken.
That is from Professor Michael Ashley from the University of New South
Wales. That is very strong, I am sure you will agree. I have read the
book myself and it contains phrases that had nothing to do with
science. There is a somewhat gratuitous attack on Chancellor Angela
Merkel on page 441, the same page essentially that contains a
gratuitous attack on Minister Wong. Page 470–
Senator IAN MACDONALD–That does not make the book–
Dr Ayers–No, the point is, Senator, that it is not science. The book
says that it is Global Warming: The Missing Science. Were it science,
that would be fine. To quote Professor Ashley again:
The book is largely a collection of contrarian ideas and conspiracy
theories that are rife in the blogosphere. The writing is rambling and
repetitive; the arguments flawed and illogical.
Senator IAN MACDONALD–But Dr Ayers–
CHAIR–Senator Macdonald, Dr Ayers is making a statement. You can ask
questions after he makes the statement.
Senator IAN MACDONALD–We are on limited time. It is additional
estimates. In Cardinal Pell’s case, he did a written response, which
we tabled. I wonder whether it might not be more appropriate for Dr
Ayers to do a written response which can be tabled. I can assure Dr
Ayers that I will be making sure his comments are passed on not only
to Cardinal Pell, but also to Professor Plimer who says these same
sorts of things about the people you are quoting.
CHAIR–Senator Macdonald, I do not want you to enter into the
argument. I know where you are coming from. My position–and our
rule–is that Dr Ayers can put his statement on Hansard. He does not
need to write it; he is prepared to put it on Hansard now, and it is
Senator IAN MACDONALD–You said that we have a limited time. How long
is the statement likely to be?
CHAIR–I am prepared to have it put on–
Senator IAN MACDONALD–The rest of us want to ask questions.
CHAIR–Senator Macdonald, you have had plenty of time to ask
questions. You are the one wasting my time now. I think that you
should let Dr Ayers go on. Dr Ayers, how long do you think the
statement might take?
Senator BOSWELL–Mr Chairman, I am very happy for Professor Ayers to
make the statement, but I do think we should give the same opportunity
to Dr Plimer. You have got every right to criticise him, but I think
he has a right to defend himself in the same forum. So if you are
CHAIR–I do not know whether it is appropriate for Dr Plimer to be
Senator BOSWELL–It is just as appropriate–
CHAIR–Dr Ayers, how long do you think it will take?
Dr Ayers–It would probably take between five and 10 minutes.
CHAIR–I think that we should continue.
Senator IAN MACDONALD–Being aware that I will send it to Dr Plimer and
ask him to write a written response to incorporate.
Dr Ayers–Just responding to Senator Macdonald, I will be making
contact directly with the cardinal after these estimates. As I said at
the outset, from my point of view I am disappointed that I was not
having this discussion with him directly. I am very happy to do that.
Senator IAN MACDONALD–His letter is dated July–that was seven months ago.
CHAIR–Dr Ayers, I would ask you not to engage directly with Senator
Macdonald. That will lead us down a blind alley, I can assure you. I
am saying that you should make your statement and then Senator
Macdonald can ask you questions.
Dr Ayers–Chair, my proposition here is that there are about half a
dozen assertions in the letter and I would like to respond to each
one, if I may. First of all, I should just say that a critique of
Professor Plimer’s book is available. There is another university
professor, named Ian Enting, at the University of Melbourne and if you
put ‘Enting’ and ‘Plimer’ into a search engine you will come up with a
55-page document detailing mistakes, misunderstandings and
misrepresentations. That is available and I will be sending that to
the cardinal. Everybody who wants to dig into an analysis of the book
can do that.
On the first thing, the Roman warming, Professor Plimer asserts that
the temperatures during that period were two degrees to six degrees
warmer than today. If you go through the book, there is not a single
scientific reference in the book that makes that statement. It is an
assertion without any scientific evidence. The example of a book by
Lamb, published in 2007, is about as close as you get. The strongest
statement in that says:
By late Roman times, particularly the fourth century AD, it may well have been warmer than now–
Now being the mid-1970s when the book was written. In fact, we know
the earth was a little warmer. So there is no cogent evidence being
provided at all for that statement. I have no idea–
Senator IAN MACDONALD–East Anglia University–
Dr Ayers–I have no idea where the two degrees to six degrees comes
from. I will heed the chair’s advice. What is interesting about that
is that there were things like assertions that grapes were grown in
England and that the two degrees to six degrees would support
that. Grapes are grown in England today. There are more than 400
vineyards. That sort of level evidence is not science; it is anecdote.
If Professor Plimer has time he should publish it in a scientific
journal and then we can have it level. That is that: there just is not
any evidence in the book.
If we move on to the medieval warm period, he references a study of
6,000 bore holes. These are holes in rock where the temperature
diffuses down and with a mathematical technique called inversion you
can reconstruct what the past temperatures would have been based on
thermal diffusion. The reference appears to come from an article by
Professor Wally Broecker, a renowned oceanographer, written in
2001. Professor Plimer does not quote Professor Broecker’s conclusion,
The case for a global medieval warming period admittedly remains inconclusive.
So that does not support it. What Professor Plimer then does is take
one of the references from this book and refers to a 1997 paper by an
author list led by someone named Wang. What is interesting about that
is that the same authors in 2008 published a subsequent paper which
says, in fact, that you cannot use their first paper for the
purpose. They say:
The results of our earlier paper cannot be used for comparing the medieval warm period to warmth in the 20th century.
Which is exactly what Professor Plimer does. This paper was available
in 2008, a year before he published his book. He has used a paper that
the authors themselves say cannot be used in a particular way. That is
A second thing to do with the medieval warm period is on page 66, where he says:
Bore holes give accurate temperature histories for a thousand years
into the past … Northern Hemisphere bore hole data shows the
medieval warm period and the cooling of 2 degrees from the end of the
Little Ice Age.
When you go and look at the scientific paper–which you assume is about
bore holes, Northern Hemisphere, medieval warm period–you discover the
paper is actually not about bore holes but about an ice core; it is
not taken in the Northern Hemisphere, it is from the Antarctic; and it
is for the period 10,000 years to 20,000 years ago, not the Roman warm
period. That level of getting references wrong is not science. So the
book does not provide evidence about the medieval warm period or the
Roman warm period.
The cardinal in his letter says that he has metadata analysis–that is,
an analysis that sits above all the papers that are random reviews–but
he just cannot find it. That’s okay. If he can find it I would be
happy to look at it. I know of three metadata analyses, though. One of
them is in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group
I report from the Fourth Assessment Report. It answers all these
questions. However, there are those who feel that the IPCC is somehow
biased, so they would not use it.
At the time it was being written in 2006, the US National Academy of
Science carried out an independent review and wrote a report entitled,
Surface temperature reconstructions for the last 2,000 years, because
there were those who said the IPCC process was not robust. So we have
an independent report from the National Academy of Science. Their
It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean
surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th
century than during any comparable period during the preceding four
They go on to say:
Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600.
The medieval warm period is in there.
Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at
many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25
years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900.
The Roman warm period was 250 BC to 450 AD. So they do not support
it. That is two metadata analyses. They were both available to
Professor Plimer. They are not mentioned in the book. So it is not a
fair review of the scientific literature. The final point I will make
is that the US EPA, in December 2009, published the administrator’s
results on the ‘endangerment’ and ’cause or contribute’ findings for
greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. This was a
process in which the Administrator of the EPA made a finding that the
current and projected concentrations of six well-mixed greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere threatened the public health and welfare of
current and future generations. I will not go into the ’cause or
contribute’ finding, but the point was that there was a profoundly
careful review. They had a 60-day consultation period for public
comment, and 380,000 public comments were taken in. They all included
the statements made in Professor Plimer’s book that have unfortunately
misled Cardinal Pell. Not one of them was supported. So there are
three metadata reviews–from the IPCC, from the National Academy of
Sciences and from the US EPA– that do not support the propositions
that are being put.
I will move on to carbon dioxide, where Professor Plimer has brought
to the attention of anybody who reads the book–and Cardinal Pell has
picked it up–that 90,000 measurements of CO2 were done over the last
150 years by a particular method. He contrasted those with the carbon
dioxide record from Mauna Loa in Hawaii, which from the fifties has
documented the increase in human activities. It looks as though that
is a fair comparison, but it is not. It is actually verging on
disingenuous. The fact is there are 150 stations measuring CO2
worldwide, 110 of which meet the standards such that the annual
analysis done by the World Meteorological Organisation’s World Data
Centre for Greenhouse Gases uses those to describe CO2 everywhere. You
simply cannot, if you pay attention to all the data available, reach
the conclusion that CO2 levels were higher in any other period in
Professor Plimer does not mention that in 1986 all the old data that
were collected over the last 150 years were reviewed in a paper by
Fraser et al. I can give you the citation if you like. The issue here
is that, in Australia, we have, at Cape Grim in Tasmania, one of those
110 high-quality baseline stations measuring CO2. If you look at that
and if you look at the work done in the Antarctic Division on ice
cores and firn, which is the loose layers of snow that compact down at
about 80 metres–air has been extracted all the way down from the
present down into the past, through the firn layer and into the ice
cores, back 2,000 years–there is absolutely no possibility that the
global CO2 levels were 400 parts per million last century. It is just
implausible. Yet, on the basis of 90,000 measurements from a paper by
a fellow named Beck, that is the conclusion put in the book and that
is the conclusion picked up by Cardinal Pell.
Professor Plimer also did not cite the fact that, during the year
after the Beck paper came out, there were two rebuttals published in
the same journal pointing out the errors in it. They were not referred
to. So there is very selective use of data the whole way along. The
Australian scientists who have worked on the carbon cycle include
those working in Canberra at one of the two international offices of
the Global Carbon Project, where on an annual basis CO2 levels are
reviewed, the carbon cycle is reviewed and the budget of carbon going
into the atmosphere, the oceans and the land surface is all reviewed
and published. It is not in this book because, if it were in the book,
the conclusions that are in the book could not be reached.
So what I am going to suggest to Cardinal Pell in due course is that
he comes with me and visits a range of climate change science
establishments in Australia and has a look at the science directly,
not through this book but through the lens of what men and women in
Australia are doing in scientific institutions that is valid, that is
published and that has real credibility. My contention is that
Cardinal Pell may well become an ambassador for the quality of climate
change science if he is exposed to the quality of the science that is
done. That is my aspiration. He can make his own decision about
whether the science says what Professor Plimer says, but I think he
will become an ambassador for the quality of the science we do in this
country. It is absolutely not honoured by this book.
I know these are strong statements but I am the head of a national
agency and the information that is out there is not adequate based on
what I know. So I am taking my job seriously and making a strong
statement. There are some other things in Cardinal Pell’s letter that
I will not go into because I can see people’s eyes will start to glaze
over. I will just make two other comments. At one stage he lists
greenhouse gases. Included in the list is the gas nitrogen. That is
not a greenhouse gas; it is 78 per cent of the atmosphere. You cannot
have people out there telling the public that nitrogen is a greenhouse
gas, because it is not.
The final point I will make is on the statement from Professor Plimer
that CO2 from fossil fuels accounts for 0.1 per cent of the greenhouse
effect. There is a parameter called climate sensitivity. It is the
temperature increase you would get if you doubled CO2. The
conventional view, which is very well attested to in scientific
literature, is that it is about two or three degrees. That is roughly
it. At equilibrium, when everything comes into balance, that is what
the temperature of the Earth would go up by. Professor Plimer says
that is not right; he says it is only half a degree. At least, he says
that in one part of his book. In another part he says that it is 1Â½
degrees. So he is not consistent with himself. You can do a very
simple calculation. Professor Enting–the guy who has done the 55 pages
collecting problems with Professor Plimer’s book–shows you how to do
the calculation. You can compute the change from 280 parts per million
pre the industrial age to 385 now. Using Professor Plimer’s climate
sensitivity, it would increase temperature by 0.23 degrees. We have
seen about 0.7, but he has put his sensitivity below that. If 0.23
degrees is only 1.1 per cent or one thousandth of the greenhouse
effect, it implies that the greenhouse effect is 223 degrees and
without it our planet would be as cold as the outer planets. So the
calculations in this book are just erroneous. I will give up at this
stage. There is plenty more I could go on with, but I will not.
CHAIR–Dr Ayers, thanks for taking the time to take us through those
issues. So you are going to convert the cardinal and make him a
missionary for climate change?
Dr Ayers–No. In fact, I think that–
Senator Ian Macdonald–Who suggested to you that you might read this out tonight, Dr Ayers?
Dr Ayers–Nobody. As I said, I felt that it needed to be in the Hansard.
Senator Ian Macdonald–Yes, I am quite sure it should have been, but a
written response would have been equally as good because unfortunately
Professor Plimer, should he choose to respond, can only put in a
written response. He cannot make the commentary that you have made.
Dr Ayers–I am happy for Professor Plimer to write to me.
Senator Ian Macdonald–No, it needs to be done here. This is the
trouble. The chair has allowed this to happen. This is going to go on
Senator SIEWERT–You were allowed table that letter last time.
Senator Ian Macdonald–But that is tabling. I agree with that. He
should have been able to table a reply. I agree with that. Professor
Plimer will not be able to come and talk to the committee.
Senator LUDLAM–He can publish another work of science fiction
CHAIR–Order! I am not going to have a debate taking place across the
chair. If you want to ask any questions of Dr Ayers on what he has
just said, I think it is perfectly appropriate to ask them
now. Senator Macdonald, I invite you to ask any questions you have of
Dr Ayers on what he has just put.
Senator Ian Macdonald–It is now 10 to nine. We have two hours left to
do the whole of the rest of the program. I would not impose upon my
colleagues by asking any more. I have had my fair share. I just think
that it was an inappropriate decision of the committee to allow 20
minutes to be taken up by what is clearly an interscientific argument.
CHAIR–It is about the best 20 minutes I have heard at estimates for a
long time. Congratulations, Dr Ayers.
Senator IAN MACDONALD–You should go and listen to Professor Carter some day.
CHAIR–Before we move on, I take it then, Dr Ayers, that you do not
agree with the second paragraph of the letter from the Cardinal to
Senator Macdonald that says:
I am not surprised that the Bureau has acknowledged the veracity of
most of the factual statements set out in my article, but I am pleased
that it has done so.
You do not agree with that, obviously.