I must disagree. If we wait until the problems are completely beyond control or withstanding, the time to panic will have come and gone. I think the time to panic was 20+ years ago, when we still had the chance to mitigate the damage before it got to a disastrous point. Now, I think we're hosed no matter what we do, the only question for me is how hosed.
The greenhouse gasses stay in the atmosphere for 100-10000 years (depending on which one we're talking about), meaning if we stopped pumping them out today, we will see the effects of the last 100 years coming back to bite us anyway. Panic is only appropriate if it causes action in time for it to be useful, and that time came and went. Because the system is so slow to react, nothing we do today will change the future of anyone alive today, but may possibly afford their descendants a better, survivable future.

So while I might agree with you, it's not time to panic, I say it's too late and you are saying it's not time yet. Where does that leave us?

I was referencing the ensemble models the IPCC used in their latest report. I'm largely assuming it includes the latest knowledge on the subject. To me the more encouraging thing is direct measurement of energy imbalance being available to measure models against. The truest measure of the overall greenhouse effect is just this. With it, so long as models accurately track and predict trends in the energy imbalance we can be confident they more or less have things right. That said, the IPCC notes there has been no trend in instrumental data since 2000. Models have been universally projecting a modest upward trend. This again gives hope and reason to believe the lower end projections are the more likely to be accurate. This correlates well with how the original 1990 projections have mapped to actual temp over the last 25 years too. All that is to say that scientifically those saying we should panic need as much slapping into place as those insisting nothing is happening at all.

Do the models that you reference (that say it won't be disastrous by 2100) include methane? From everything I've read and seen reported, the methyl hydrates are already melting in the oceans, causing large releases of methane throughout the globe. Methane is a FAR worse greenhouse gas than CO2. What I've read is that, once that cycle gets going, it's self re-enforcing because the methane traps heat, heating the ocean, releasing more methane, trapping more heat, etc. It's hard for me to believe they are now predicting LESS warming by 2100 when the hydrates are already melting ahead of predictions....perhaps there's a part of the cycle I don't understand?

I think the Democratic voters failed to turn out for a few reasons. All the media made it seem like it was going to be a Republican win, even the "liberal media" was portraying it that way. This led to a defeatist "what can I do?" mentality. Another is that Democrats failed to really push a couple key issues, namely raising the minimum wage and equal pay for equal work. Heck, even just saying that minimum wage will be tied to inflation and go up with inflation each yet, even if it isn't fully adjusted to where it would be now, would have been a big step forward. They shied away from those, just like when they passed Obamacare they shied away from single payer or the government option that was promised and instead gave us an old Republican plan under the assumption Republicans would be glad the Democrats caved in and accepted a Republican idea.

The Democrats failed to deliver largely because Republican obstructionism. This isn't to absolve them of their failure during the two years they could have really moved forward with a true progressive agenda.

Fox News and the pulpit have the Republican voter base convinced to vote Republican, that Obama is singlehandedly destroying America (I'm surrounded by these people every day, I have to unfortunately live with them, I used to be a right wing, Christian Republican myself, then became a right wing Christian Libertarian before I actually started applying real critical thought to the economic impact of the policies as society stands now and became more Liberal). The pulpit has convinced these people that it doesn't matter Jesus said to help the needy and the poor, to heal the sick, and basically everything 100% opposite of the beliefs of the Republican party, to vote Republican anyhow, and it to be the Christian vote. They deny being Christian Reconstructionist while being clearly Reconstructionist. They say things like "if you actually think about it critically, CO2 is good for plants, so their argument is silly" and they accept it, because plants absorb CO2 they think that CO2 emissions can't be as bad as the environmentalist say it is, after all, greenhouses pump CO2 into them to make plants grow better. Again I was guilty of repeating that sort of non-sense. Then it occurred to me there are no walls around plants in the wild, there is no ceiling to help keep CO2 near where plants are, and the fact that very little of the Earth is filled with green (let alone the fact most plants are doing as much CO2 exchange as they can already).... that most of the Earth is blue... that yes the ocean absorbs CO2, but in doing to warms it and that drives massive changes including storms in of itself and learned the real consequences of CO2 emissions.

As Ralph Nader recently pointed out (http://videosift.com/video/Ralph-Nader-on-GOP-8482-s-2014-Wins) the Democrats can't just blame Citizens United or attempts by Republicans to try and limit voting among the poor, they have to take a look at the fact they didn't push the issues that most Americans stand behind but didn't push.

I like the idea of moving elections to the weekend. That probably would help more than some calls of late to make it a Federal Holiday. Most places don't close on Federal Holiday's anyhow, so that won't really help as much as moving it to a weekend... of course one could also argue that people might not want to take time out of their weekends to vote.

Absolute BS.
Bad math, no science. He's cherry picking data and extrapolating using partial worst case scenarios rather than actual measurements...that is not science, it's misleading propaganda.
The cost of moving away from fossil fuels is easily offset completely by the savings of the new technologies used, and likely the switch would be a gain to GDP, as it makes tens of thousands of new technology jobs and billions-trillions in additional GDP selling the tech, and once built many new techs have far lower operation costs, saving money. (That's how economies work, you sell stuff and make money...right?) It sure worked for my solar system, which you, Trance, would likely still try to talk people out of, claiming it's more expensive than it's worth, while reality is it paid for itself in less than 1/3 of it's expected lifespan AND has other benefits.
The cost of 'adapting to climate change' is infinite, as it's impossible. Plants, animals, and biota can't survive it...and people like to eat. Kind of hard to adapt if there's no food, far LESS farmable land, less or no natural food sources, etc.
Also, he ignores the facts that 1) it's almost certainly going to be MORE than 3 deg. by 2100 and 2)methane hydrates are already melting, and methane is (I think) something like 100 times more damaging to the atmosphere (as far as greenhouse effects), so even "just" 3 deg. suddenly becomes 8 deg...that's often ignored.
3 deg. means on average, but also means the spread gets larger. Winters are colder, summers are even hotter. 3 deg. doesn't sound like much by itself, but it really means 15-20 deg. hotter when it's hot, and 12-17deg. colder when it's cold.

No, it means that it's too late to have no climate change as a result of human produced greenhouse gasses (thanks to the impressively effective interference and intentional confusion caused by politically motivated climate change deniers who have delayed meaningful action thus far), but it's never too late to stop adding to the problem and making it worse.

The 'right wing' stance so far has been "It's not real, no...I mean, It's being faked by scientists, no...I mean, it's not a problem, no...I mean, it's not man made, no...I mean, it's too expensive to do anything, no...I mean, it's being faked by scientists, no....I mean, it isn't real, no...I mean, it's too late to do anything." I quit giving them an ear at "It's not real", because I can read and do math, and can understand science.

EDIT:And please-oh-please. Give me the URL of the UN speech you quoted as saying "Quit thinking about Climate Change, and act to empower us even further than we already are! What wealth still exists is shrinking, so we need to scramble harder for your last dollars!" I'm thinking you made that up.

Wow, you really can't read, can you?

From the title of the article you linked:

U.N. climate change report sees risk of 'irreversible' damage

Then, from the article itself:

In a paragraph summing up the risks, the draft says that a continued rise in world greenhouse gas emissions is "increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems."

(both emphasis mine)

Climate change is not irreversible, but if we continue down this path, it may very well be.

And even if it was irreversible as of this point, we would still need to do something to mitigate the effects. Personally, I believe this is the most likely future scenario.

And your contrarian link has zero credibility. An article in the Daily Express talking about a TV weathermans opinion? What's next? A link to the Weekly World News interviewing Joe the Plumber?

@dannym3141, I understand that you are "stepping out of the debate," but, for your edification, I'll respond here... And, for the record, I am not "funded" by Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Solar, or Big Green. Nor am I a professor of climate or environmental science at a State University (and don't have a political agenda around this issue other than to help promote sound reasoning and critical thinking). I do, however, hold a doctorate and can read the scientific literature critically. So, in response to what climate change "believers" say, it's worth noting that no one is actually taking the temperature of the seas. They simply see sea levels rising and say "global warming," but how do they know? It's a model they came up with. But far from certain, just a theory. Like Antarctica melting, but then someone finds out that it's due to volcanic activity underneath, and so on.

And also, why is the heat then staying in the water and not going into the atmosphere? So, they then have to come up with a theory on top of the other theory... So the heat is supposedly being stored deep below where the sensors cannot detect it. Great. And this is happening because...some other theory or another that can't be proven either. And then they have to somehow come up with a theory as to how they know that the deep sea warming is due to human activity and not to other causes. I'm not denying that any of this happens, just expressing skepticism, meaning that no one really knows for sure. That folks would "bet the house on it" does not serve as any proof, at all.

The discussion on the sift pivots from "global warming" to vilifying skeptics, not about the original skepticism discussed, that there is catastrophic man-caused global warming going on. Three issues yet to be proven beyond skepticism: 1) that there is global warming; 2) that it is caused by human activity; 3) that it's a big problem.

When I ask about one, they dance around to another one of these points, rather than responding. And all they have in response to the research is the IPCC "report" on which all their science is based. And most if not all published "believers" say that the heat "may be hiding" in the deep ocean, not that they "certainly know it is" like they seem to claim.

They don't have knowledge that the scientists who are actively working on this do not have, do they? It's like the IRS saying, "My computer crashed." The IPCC says, "The ocean ate my global warming!"

Here are some links worth reading:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274

And, from a different rebuttal: "Referring to the 17 year ‘pause,’ the IPCC allows for two possibilities: that the sensitivity of the climate to increasing greenhouse gases is less than models project and that the heat added by increasing CO2 is ‘hiding’ in the deep ocean. Both possibilities contradict alarming claims."

Here's the entire piece from emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen: http://www.thegwpf.org/richard-lindzen-understanding-ipcc-climate-assessment/

And take your pick from all of the short pieces listed here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/08/is-gores-missing-heat-really-hiding-in-the-deep-ocean/

And http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/

"Just where the heat is and how much there is seems to depend on who is doing the modeling. The U.S. National Oceanographic Data Center ARGO data shows a slight rise in global ocean heat content, while the British Met Office, presumably using the same data shows a slight decline in global ocean heat content."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/03/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-2/#sthash.idQttama.dpuf

Dr. Lindzen had this to say about the IPCC report: "I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/01/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-1/#sthash.oMO3oy6X.dpuf

So just as "believers" can ask "Why believe Heartland [financier for much of the NPCC], but not the IPCC," I can just as easily ask "Why should I believe you and not Richard Lindzen?"

"CCR-II cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers to show that the IPCC has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide controls."

And from the same author's series:

"Human carbon dioxide emissions are 3% to 5% of total carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, and about 98% of all carbon dioxide emissions are reabsorbed through the carbon cycle.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf

"Using data from the Department of Energy and the IPCC we can calculate the impact of our carbon dioxide emissions. The results of that calculation shows that if we stopped all U.S. emissions it could theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.003 C per year. If every country totally stopped human emissions, we might forestall 0.01 C of warming."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/08/01/climate-change-in-perspective/#sthash.Dboz3dC5.dpuf

Again, I have asked, repeatedly, where's the evidence of human impact on global warming? "Consensus" is not evidence. I ask for evidence and instead I get statements about the consensus that global warming happening. These are two different issues.

"Although Earth’s atmosphere does have a “greenhouse effect” and carbon dioxide does have a limited hypothetical capacity to warm the atmosphere, there is no physical evidence showing that human carbon dioxide emissions actually produce any significant warming."

Or Roger Pielke, Sr: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/pielke-sr-on-that-hide-and-seek-ocean-heat/

Or Lennart Bengtsoon (good interview): "Yes, the scientific report does this but, at least in my view, not critically enough. It does not bring up the large difference between observational results and model simulations. I have full respect for the scientific work behind the IPCC reports but I do not appreciate the need for consensus. It is important, and I will say essential, that society and the political community is also made aware of areas where consensus does not exist. To aim for a simplistic course of action in an area that is as complex and as incompletely understood as the climate system does not make sense at all in my opinion."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/meteorologist-lennart-bengtsson-joins-climate-skeptic-think-tank-a-968856.html

Bengtsson: "I have always been a skeptic and I believe this is what most scientists really are."

What Michael Crichton said about "consensus": "Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Will Happer on the irrelevancy of more CO2 now: "The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds."

Ivar Giaever, not a climate scientist per se, but a notable scientist and also a skeptic challenging "consensus": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html

Even prominent IPCC scientists are skeptics, even within the IPCC there is not agreement: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/

And for your research, it may be worth checking out: http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/dp/0521010683

The scientific community *knows* that climate change is real. The scientific community is made up of individual researchers at universities all over the world, anyone who practices good science and adheres to the scientific method is in no doubt about what the research points to. You can't buy the global scientific community, there are too many of "us" (i guess) that are all absolutely anal about good scientific practice. You could buy one or two, you could buy a small group, but the only thing that changes the opinion of the global scientific community is hard scientific reasoning.

I can't speak for where you live, but if you were to walk into my university's physics department tomorrow and ask any lecturer or professor about climate change, they'd tell you that, and the same goes for just about any university in the UK, holland and france i imagine, if not more like germany and so on. Anyone who has spent any amount of time comparing graphs and looking for statistical anomalies will tell you that there is a god damn big and unwieldy peak sticking up on the temperature/time graph right about where we started mass producing greenhouse gases, and the only new influence into the equation was us, because the old peaks are flat compared to this one. This is happening on a HUMAN timescale, not on a geological one.

We're seeing ocean floor methane bubbling up to the surface that we haven't seen before due to the heating of the ocean, and only this week the scientist who studied it tweeted flat out that if even a fraction of that methane is released into the atmosphere... "we're fucked."

It's pretty damn serious, but i'm not telling you that you need to pay huge taxes or fees to green companies or anything, and no scientist ever will. The agendas that politicians take up in the name of science should not stop you from accepting the science, and there are simple, good common sense things you can do to make a small difference that would cumulate to something big if we all did them. The only reason governments haven't been investing more into green energy is because they are relentlessly lobbied by the hugely wealthy and powerful and corrupt energy firms.

What is more likely?

Yes, if you want scientific opinion, you should ask a scientist! Very true!

But, you will not get a 99.5% "yup, the evidence says it's true" from any scientist at random that you ask.. But, hey, that's what science is for! Go give it a try and see for yourself!

But what "evidence" specifically, are we talking about? The evidence that climate change is mostly caused by humans? I don't think any scientist says that. The debate is about whether 1% of that change is caused by humans or not and whether that 1% is a catastrophic thing or not. The debate is not about whether the climate goes through changes or not. On that, everyone agrees. Climate changes.

And the political debate is mostly about whether the proposed regulations will make any major difference or not. These are not the same "debates."

(One thing not in dispute by most climate scientists is that cattle is the primary cause of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.)

(And what there is 99.99% scientific consensus on is that climate change debates on social media are a waste of time and completely irrelevant to climate change.)

I'm sorry mate, but i'm going to have to refute a bunch of this. And i hope i can do it without coming across as religious in my approach.

"Your "facts" are nothing but easily manipulated simulations based on theories," Excerpt from your full quote below.

-- The facts and science are not in contention and they are not "easily manipulated simulations". What we have are conclusions made by studious people based on data collected by electronic instruments world wide. The data is statistically analysed to find trends and patterns and then those trends and patterns are separately analysed to see how likely they are. When hundreds of those studies are done, consensus is formed and that is how humans come to all the theories that you adhere to every day; such as gravity, conservation of energy and momentum, etc. We then construct simulations that adhere to those theories and pass different parameters into the simulation to see what the results would be in a certain amount of time. Those parameters are the things you can change, a typical parameter might be the fractional amount of greenhouse gases per cubic metre or something like that, change in volume of polar ice per day perhaps. Thousands of studies analyse thousands of different parameter values and conclusions are drawn from the whole. That is why so many scientists now believe in climate change - because over thousands of scientific studies, the conclusions have pointed overwhelmingly and convincingly to bad news for humans.

I can't dispute your accusation that they are "based on theories". I have yet to meet a person that preferred to have their facts based on anything other than theories. A theory is a collection of ideas relating to a certain topic that are based on independent principles. The alternative is to pin words to a dartboard and throw blindfolded to construct facts. Or perhaps have a floor covered with words and let sacred chickens run round shitting our facts out for us. I'd prefer to use independent principles and the best logic we have available to us.

Please read this bit in particular
Scientists are not tricking or fooling anyone, there is no money in it for a scientist. If they try to lie, they are ridiculed by the rest of the scientists. If you spend 3 years at any decent university doing any science then you will discover that the scientific method is pretty sacred to scientists because it's the only way the field progresses.

BUT BUT BUT politicians get hold of the studies and lie to you about what they mean or how best to solve the problems they illuminate. They want your money, and they manipulate the science to get your money. They can do that because most people are not scientists, and need someone to explain it to them. So my advice is that you do not choose politicians to do that job, but instead use independent adherents to the scientific method who choose to dedicate their lives to scientific study - like Neil de Grasse Tyson who speaks as a scientist... and if he did not, his reputation within the scientific community would be in tatters, and other budding scientists like myself (and others) in this community would be highlighting just how full of shit he is.

So, are scientists lying to us, or are politicians lying to us? What seems more likely?

Then you aren't looking at the data. Oceanographers consistently know that their data shows the oceans as a whole are warming fast, and becoming acidic.
Just check any reef if you don't believe them, they're all bleaching from high temperatures and not forming due to acidity. Greenhouse gasses drive the systems, both heat and acidity, but are not the only factors, just the main one's by far.

Funny how you "argue"....'you're absolutely wrong, and if your right I don't care' and 'I have more important and interesting things to do than argue', then you continue to argue. Just too funny, I guess that means you're done learning.
Tell Venus a planet can't 'die' from a runaway greenhouse effect. What I meant was die as a place where people and other 'higher level' organisms can live. Bacteria and waterbears can live with or without the planet, so they don't count.
Yes, the internet is full of crazy people, but you can change if you accept your insanity. I don't see that happening. :-)

Oh, then you do believe in AGW? If not, what's the straw man?
If global warming were the reason I do the things I do, you would be correct, going vegetarian would be a reasonable next step. The thing is I've done all I have done for personal, self centered reasons that benefit me personally, it just so happens that they mostly also benefit the planet. Because I intentionally didn't have children and don't believe in reincarnation, I have little incentive to attempt to save the planet beyond my lifespan. That said, I eat little beef, which is the worst meat to eat, and mostly chicken, the best meat for ecology (except for Iguana tail, a truly sustainable meat product).
CO2 staying at current levels dooms the planet fairly quickly. Raising those levels dooms if faster and more completely. I see little chance that we might actually decrease CO2 production levels, much less turn it to a negative number, which needs to happen if there's any chance in hell of stopping the run-away greenhouse effect. I see it as an issue that's far too late to stop, and can only be minimized at best, and will likely be maximized instead.
It's more like 4 billion that need to reduce their 'footprint', and another 3-4 billion that need to not expand theirs. More to the point, it's about 5 billion that need to not reproduce, while the other 3 billion only have 2 children at most. Not a likely outcome, but what is needed to solve the most pressing issues of the day.
Government is required to incentivize industry to follow suit and reduce their emissions. Without coersion, they'll do what's cheaper every time, and not cleaning up your own mess is always cheaper.
The only 'climate scientists' that are skeptical are the deniers, all others have examined the data and come to the same conclusion, just differing in the levels of change they expect. From what I see, they all underestimate the changes to come and ignore compounding features of the systems.
I'm not sure why you don't see this as a serious conversation, but that's on you.
I have given a scientific commentary. you ignored it and asked the same questions again, claiming they had been ignored. I'll try again....

CO2 saturation and temperature are linked, and have been proven to be so. Human production of CO2 is larger and faster than any natural CO2 rise in known climate history, well over 200000 years and up to hundreds of millions of years depending on what data you consider reasonable and reliable, and it's not only the amount but the rate of change that is greater than any natural climate change ever seen in the data. It's that faster rate of change that's the most dangerous, but the amount that determines the change to come. The system is slow to react, and is only now reacting to last centuries atmospheric changes. That means that even if we stopped CO2 production completely today, the effects will still be felt for centuries to come, and we aren't even slowing the rate at which we raise the amount of CO2 we produce, it's going up faster by the day thanks to those that either deny the problem or ignore it in favor of profit or simplicity. That's why estimates of the future are all lacking in my eyes, they all assume either static or reduced CO2 production, which is not reality.
We're hosed. The only option I see is to become self sufficient and die before the planet does. One more reason to not have children and instead be self sufficient as much as possible and enjoy what's left while you can.

This seems like a straw man "attack" to me.

Anyway, you should stop eating meat right now. No more meat. It's a good follow up to not having children. If "global warming" is the reason you did not have children, then I must acknowledge your belief in man-made global warming and commitment to not contributing to it. But stop the meat eating. That also contributes greatly to greenhouse gases, second only to population.

And, yes, for CO2 alone, to stay a current levels (not to mention decrease the levels), humanity would have to cut down 60% to 80%. Not happening. To decrease levels it would need negative levels. Certainly not happening.

No, I'm not asking for a "physics class." Nothing will be resolved and no one convinced of anything through the comments section. This is simply mental masturbation.

Good luck getting 350,000,000 people reduce their carbon footprint by commenting about your opinions on videosift.

I'm glad you do your little part in slowing down the increase of greenhouse gases. Like you say, it won't do much, but at least you are doing something. But relying on the government? That won't do anything. Too bad, because I also would like clean air. It may take a few generations for people to get on with a more realistic program than "petitioning their congressmen." (So maybe not having children is not that great for the environment as clearly the current generations are not getting anywhere with this.) Do whatever you are going to do or not (just like everyone else). And good luck. Who cares other than you?

If you think you know how to stop greenhouse gases to levels you like, then go ahead and do it. Or tell someone who can do something about it. See if you can convince the climate scientists who are skeptical (not the deniers) about man-made global warming. If you have some solid research, you might make a difference!

@shatterdrose, I won't even go into the "politics" of all this. Everything that involves politicians, you can count as a failure already. But, hey, I wish you luck with that.

AT this point, it's clear to me that we're not having a serious conversation. Good luck to you in getting your "representatives" to do what you want them to do and stopping global warming.

Have a blast.

If you have your own research on climate change, or your own scientific commentary, I may be willing to take a look at it. Otherwise, everyone has an opinion and commenting won't change anyone's mind.