Concerning, at present, probably the most important topic of your life

[1a2bcio8]

I respect your opinions but if you don't mind, I won't go into too much detail, just ask some follow up questions.

Not a problem surely if they can mine CNG trapped in small pockets beneath the earth? It's done by injecting liquid to break up the pockets and release the gas.

Your reply to those points is just one: greed. Not good enough, sorry. You're essentially dumbing life down to one dimension and forgetting about everything else. This is why I ignore people who believe in conspiracies, they seem to find one answer for absolutely everything. How can you even say that? Perhaps there are some greedy people at power but you're saying ALL of them are greedy, or such a great number that those who aren't, are in the minority. Do you have any statistical evidence to prove your point (not just 3 articles which say someone completely irrelevant is greedy)? Probably not, because I doubt any research has been conducted into those fields. On that basis, the conclusion you drew has a high chance of being completely wrong.

You ask whether I took the time to find out - no, because the moment you start searching for "evidence" of what you're talking about, you finish up in the weird part of the internet where people arrive at ridiculous conclusions based on one small questionable fact. I'd consider a read if there was some research coming from places like Oxford uni or Yale, not some geek who's spent the last few years in his dungeon, afraid to get out. But obviously Oxford would never release a study on such a matter because it's probably funded by the chemtrail mafia and Release The Methane lobby.

You also wrote, if I understand correctly that if I didn't take the time to find out about this, people in power won't either. Really? They are PAID to find out, it's their job. My job is selling bikes. And when there's something new on the market I do find out about it, and sure as hell they should too, given that people in power have a huge number of advisers (all greedy I suppose).

You're referring to fracking I take it in your first point? If so, I've mentioned that and it's been shown as extremely harmful to the environment.

I'm pretty much worn out of this thread now but I'll give one last go at answering your points. I'll admit ignorance as to why we can't extract the methane from the ice. I did read someone saying the problem was that it existed within not large cavities but within minute, divided pockets within the ice. I'm not sure though.

Regarding greed as an explanation, it's a pretty valid one I think. At least it's very fundamental. We don't have to consider it in terms of the fact that governments do very little in response to science's claim about global warming but you asked as to why they are ignoring this danger. What sort of terms were you thinking if not psychological as an explanation? The situation of greed is a complex one and the point is that it is also institutional which is to say that it is how systems of power function in the modern world. For instance, corporations are naturally greedy because they are legally obliged to maximise profits for their shareholders. If anyone tries to behave otherwise, by trying to redirect money toward charity or something similar, they will lose their job. So, in that sense, you can have relatively good people that have little choice but to do bad things if they want to operate in a certain work environment. Regarding government, if you consider the ties that the decision makers have to corporate interests then again we observe pressures to follow institutionalised greed. People in the higher echelons of government, who are usually quite wealthy, hold positions and shares in conglomerate companies and a presidential candidate can ONLY run with massive support from big business. If a candidate becomes president they clearly have an obligation toward those that have funded them. Then there's lobbyists... More broadly, we can also call the modern form of capitalism greedy by comparing it to the economic model that proceeded it when the Church dictated what happened. Previously the idea of profiting to your neighbours detriment was considered immoral. Everyone earned what they needed and that was fine. Now, the idea of profiting at the expense of your neighbour is just considered the way of things even if it harms them and even if it only relates to you adding to your wealth something you don't really need that much. This all gives you ample foundation for further research though.

The scientific consensus, agrees with an extremely high probability, that the earth is warming and humans are responsible. Yet governments in the UK and America have talked about addressing this concern - it's formed a part of their election pledges - but they haven't acted upon it. They haven't corresponded their actions, to limit carbon emissions, with that scientists have said is required to reverse the damage. This is also despite the financial costs that are associated with leaving it that increase exponentially with time. It is significantly cheaper to resolve global warming now. You can easily go and research what I'm saying. I'm offering you significant ground from which to proceed. You can read the articles that support or refute what I'm saying and make up your own mind as I've done. What more can I say though? I don't necessarily remember links or exact statistics but that doesn't mean I haven't read them, found them convincing on reasoned grounds and therefore argue for them as important. Again, you can easily go and check what I'm saying with a bit of effort. There are statistics on global warming even in magazines such as New Scientist, The Lancet (probably the most prestigious medical journal in the world), university websites... I don't see what difference it makes if I make the effort to find them again or you do? I always mostly remember the underlying principles involved. I tend to forget the details but that doesn't mean I don't understand or I'm incorrect...

You say you won't even try searching for information on global warming because it leads to weird, presumably invalid, places. Where do you find valid information then? Please tell me where valid sources are? Corporate News whose profits comes from advertising? I read academic books whose notions and facts I find correspond to some news reports and articles on internet. These reports and articles are often by professional journalists, academics and scientists. Please tell me why these sources on the internet are inevitably invalid? Again, tell me your underlying idea as to what constitutes a valid source and why the internet cannot offer that? No doubt there is always nonsense but that doesn't deny the possibility of sense.

I missed what you said about Oxford being a valid source. Well, they're not any more valid than other universities really. Truth is truth and can be appropriately expressed by any academic at any university. However, a quick Google reveals articles and books on global warming by Oxford Uni and Oxford Uni Press. Your caricature of somebody who questions the mainstream view is pretty weak and pointless. It doesn't argue any point but tries to 'win' through defamation.

That's a rather naive view of the correspondence between ones job role and the possibility that they will actually do what they are supposed to. Of course that happens but it doesn't have to. See above description of the structure relations of government.

[1a2bcio8]

I just want to add that I do not describe systems in some absolute sense. They are not perfectly 'greedy' but can be described generally in that way because of the convenience of doing so.

Also my descriptions are necessarily superficial and surmising because I'm not willing to write like a proper essay. Again, pretty easy to find sources that relate to my viewpoints. And ones that even come from prestigious sources such as Oxford.

[Mark W]

However, the kind of ambivalence you're referring to that makes a decision seem overwhelming...

I'm not referring to any decision as such - what's overwhelming is the amount of decisions that the creators of campaigns like this are either correctly or incorrectly assuring countless people they need to make. There are people with hugely specific interests in different aspects of life that use the internet to try and shock people into action, and again some of them bear more weight than others. What I was trying to get at is that condemning people for not being 100% interested or concerned about the video you posted is very reminiscent of - for example - mormons condemning non-believers for not agreeing with their viewpoint on how to save everyone in the world based on their chosen source of evidence. They have their own beliefs based on what, to them, is cast-iron proof, yet many people don't believe them because there is evidence that they believe points to the contrary. There seems to be a hell of a lot of conflicting evidence about what is/isn't happening as the planet heats up, and then there's exponentially more 'solutions' for those various problems that spiral out from there. Similarly, there are other branches of Christianity who have their own ideals and would think that to save the souls of everyone on Earth you have to act in a different way.

What always strikes me about this kind of debate is that the way the "We need to change" group always seem to cloud the issue by making it a global problem, and making it seem like the actions of one individual are meaningless. Instead of focussing on how the whole planet is f**ked, it would sort of make more sense to me to just suggest simple courses of action for the individual to actively make a change. I would imagine that virtually everyone out there, no matter what their view-point is on global warming/climate change/whatever you want to call it would agree that as a community, society, nation and global population we need to alter the way we live, so making realistic suggestions for how to alter lifestyles for the better would be more beneficial than the usual scare-mongering and hate campaigns against shadowy over-arching omnipotent groups that seem to underpin the argument for every version of just how and why we're killing ourselves. Making small, incremental steps at an individual level will always have more of a result and a chance of lasting success than just trying to whip everyone into a frenzy with attention grabbing titles for threads, Youtube videos and Facebook groups. Instead of pointing out how wrong people are to not have an interest in reading into an in-depth theory that someone has that may or may not be backed up by various sources, why not just suggest solutions that the reader can actually implement? I'm not saying this specifically at you, it's just something from seeing these different campaigns come and go, and the people "in the loop" who seem to pat themselves on the back for knowing the behind the scenes stuff the mainstream sheep are too blind to realise never actually do. Feeling smug that you've bought into the hype of an idea you've found online isn't going to stop things from happening, whereas offering help and advice that isn't condescending and patronising might.

EDIT: Again, not aiming that at you Ben...

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

But that last sentence is an assumption based purely on your imagination

ie the earth is a complex system, inherently chaotic, like the butterfly effect small changes that happen now can affect the outcome drastically when you run time forward.

I think it's fairly well known that the Earth has gone through a continual heating and cooling (i.e. self regulation) since the year dot. The thing is, whatever happens it will only affect us (which in a way is selfish to think we're all that matters)- without us the Earth will continue quite happily when we're gone. So while people say we're 'killing the planet', we're really not, just potentially changing the potential survivability for us on it.

S'ok though, Jebus will save us.

[Matt Vandart]

I have read most if this thread, but missed a few key things I think, however my question is;

Why not, if i have this right, mine all of the huge underground/underice methane and just turn it into fuel? It's the same thing the trucks and busses use right? And the exhaust fumes are H2O so it'll just rain and we're all good and not dead, for now anyway.

Also if I may add my own failry strange idea, extinsion has been happening since the dawn of time so why are we getting all pissy about it, I'd imagine the Dino's we'rent to happy either they just couldn't tell anyone... obviously.

Which is an ongoing cyclic phenomenon. We may be affecting the timing but not the end result.

I think maybe you two are missing the point of the timescale of this. If this guy is not a whacked out werido, we are talking later this year.

[Greetings]

[....]

Some valid points there with which it's difficult to disagree with. However, I wasn't talking about global warming. My view on this matter is pretty neutral, there is as much evidence to support it, as there is against it. My personal opinion is that climate has been changing for millennia, some years ago Poland was a desert, then it was covered in ice, now we're back to a temperate climate. With regard to the methane problem, if you all say that we are going to die in a few years, than I really do not believe that people in power are more concerned about power than the well-being of their kids, wives, husbands, friends etc. You're essentially saying that if there was a big comet headed for earth, they would rather stay in power, do nothing and die a few years later than act.

On the matter of this methane trapped under ice, here's an article I found in Google, from what I'd call a fairly reliable source:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120831-antarctica-methane-global-warming-science-environment/

It doesn't say that in a few years we will all die. It says that there is a big chance that within a century it could be released exacerbating global warming. It also says that WE DO NOT KNOW how much methane there is, findings are based on the estimated quantity of biological matter and age of the micro organisms trapped down there that produce methane. This is on the contrary to conspirators, who know that the quantity is deadly. How?

[Ali C]

I think maybe you two are missing the point of the timescale of this. If this guy is not a whacked out werido, we are talking later this year.

If you're on about such a short time scale, then it would seem there not enough time to change and we are all doomed. I might go on a shooting spree or something if we only have a few months left*.

*I am not going on a shooting spree

[JD™]

Exactly, the sane thing to do is extend the period with which the environment fluctuates rather than shortening it.

I've skim read up until about here, and I was really going to not comment - truly I was.

I'll keep it short: The sane thing to do, if we all love the world so f**king much, would be to let the Earth do what it's doing. The icecaps will melt, and it's rather selfish of us to think the Earth gives a toss whether we extend our time here or not. Humans have an inbuilt need for progress, even if that progress means an earlier demise.

Funnily enough, I reckon Jardo hit it on the head earlier in the topic by worrying more about his dinner - I've definitely got things I care about more than some methane which may or may not kill me or my future children.

Edited March 8, 2013 by JD™

[eskimo]

It's taken me forever to read this god damn thread, f**k. I was reading it on my breaks and when i got home. There's been some good reading, if all a bit too much for my liking on a Friday afternoon.

Firstly, I don't think anyone in this thread can say whether or not stuff is true, blah blah, because we're all not educated enough. Secondly (i forgot what Mark's first post was about but i remember it being good), Mark's second post was very good though. Ben you've not offered anything as to what we're supposed to do other than tell us to read stuff and calling us lazy for not reading it.

Secondly, global warming isn't fully understood. There are many factors which people (scientists/ journalists etc) don't take into consideration because they don't fit the theory, or it isn't understood enough to be put into the theory.

I bet most people didn't know Coccolithophores are more responsible for maintaining CO2 levels than the rain forests and greenery of the earth (or so i'm led to believe). There are that so many of these Coccs that they can be seen from space.

Also we're still unsure how much effect solar activity plays in the Earth's climate.

And that's just 2 points. What about the other stuff?

The Arctic is on the no go list for drilling and mining until 2041. You failed to state that point Ben which backs up your argument. So you can't of done that much thorough reading.

Trying oh so hard to keep this short.

And lastly. If people want to change stuff, you have the choice. Vote ffs. "voting doesn't change shit, blah blah blah", f**k off. Start your own party or "educate" people and start a revolution. But be prepared to give up your life; that means your food, GF/ Wife, electricity and fuel. People seem to forget the positives the government brings us. Just two basic things off the top of my head, i get to ride my bike and an increase to 9k tax free earnings shortly. Those two sound pretty good to me. While i don't defend the greed and ignorance of the government i know my life isn't shit enough to not have morals which i can stand on.

That's just my view. I pay tax, am honest and kind, so that's good enough for me. "what about the other stuff, 3rd world poverty etc". Well until you fly out there and help them, STFU. (our tax is supposed to aid them).

[FamilyBiker]

most of us ride alu frames,do you know its energy consumption in production is 4 times higher than steel?

just wanted to throw that in

[1a2bcio8]

Nick, I couldn't initially decide whether to wait and talk to you on the ride today about this or post.

Reading and talking to people about it is what we need at the moment - that is saying what we need to do presently. The basis of democracy and a government that can institute the necessary changes we need to deal with climate change other problems such as the economy, war, etc. is an informed people. In fact, without that, we're not living in a democracy. The three main parties are currently mostly representative of business interests. It's only by becoming aware of alternatives to the type of thinking that the current system encourages of us that we change it to be more representative of the majorities needs and in the long term. At present, our views are often shaped by media outlets that are not serving our interests.

We are, I'm afraid, lazy about what happens in the world. The point is that this will not do. Even a basic understanding of history tells us that the pattern is minority groups trying exploit the majority for gains in power or wealth. These used to be monarchies, feudal systems, etc. which used to control with force. Due to the strivings of those before us that's less possible and instead those minority interests try to exploit us through, what we might call, 'manufacturing consent' which is the effort to manipulate our world view to distract us from what's actually happening. The current 'austerity' measures, for example, are advertised as necessary yet are counter-productive to an economy that serves most of us. An economy that has a high rate of unemployment tends to be very profitable to big business. People are less inclined to argue about what they are paid and what is expected of them in a job if that job is uncertain. Certain people in this world will do whatever they can to you in order to profit in some strange sense (extra zeros in the bank account that doesn't get spent) regardless of what it means for the rest of us.

You can't just be passive to what's happening. It will, if it not already is, affect you. The difficulty you find getting a job, the two tier system that will arise in the NHS, global warming, etc. These people will keep pushing what they get away with for their own gain, even if it's insanely short-term, but can only do so to the extent that people are lazy about how they engage with the political world. Now, I understand the laziness because I suffer from it. Current affairs are often deliberately made confusing, in part to deter you and, in part, because they are complex - global warming certainly is - and, furthermore, we are constantly bombarded by forces that encourage us to shape our life around having a nice car, nice house, lots of money, status, this or that bit of technology, etc. Those latter things are appealing but they never exist separately from what else is happening. Through a worsening economy, war, global warming, etc. they might become inaccessible or meaningless. If you like the rewards of your present way of living it only makes sense to engage in what happens in the world.

Calling people lazy and expressing this message with a lot of emphasis might seem rude or unjust but when the message is so important - I'd disagree it's anything like the message of faith associated with God based religion because it's grounded in substantial fact - because of what, in all probability, is happening. In essence, it's little different to shouting at someone that they are at threat from someone who is about to drive into a wall or is about to be attacked by someone. The difference is that what I'm talking about isn't as immediate. It requires imagination, not in a wishy washy sense, but in the sense of recognising what is happening, through the power of mind, beyond what you directly experience.

Regarding about whether we can or cannot say for certain whether this is true or otherwise, it's unimportant if we can't be 100% confident. We shouldn't suspend judgement until we're a master or specialist otherwise we'd never make any important decisions. Life is always probabilistic and where there exists a good probability - such as a valid science, eminent scientists, etc. stating that there's a 90% likelihood of human cause in the rate of global warming - then, as layman, we need to seriously consider it as such. We also need to consider ideas such as disinformation in a world dominated by big business. There's much 'science' on global warming that is based upon studies sponsored by the oil industry. As a single correlative example, pharmaceutical companies often discard with drug testing that doesn't support the effectiveness of or, even, how dangerous a drug is. GlaxoSmithKline, probably the world's biggest pharmaceutical company, was found guilty of this a while back. This does make deciding on matters of science more complex but it does also suggest a trend of profit being selected over a concern for people. Specifically, I think GSK, in one instance, hid the fact that a certain anti-depressant increased the likelihood of suicide in people with depression. As a result, people died. Ben Goldacre writes about this sort of thing both in book and articles if anyone is interested.

Regarding the third world, saying you can't comment on that until you fly out there is pretty ridiculous - no offence - when a significant amount of the problems relate to our interference. The basis of problems in Africa significantly relates to the history of Western colonialism. When we gave that up we divided Africa along artificial line - consider the shape African nations on a map - which caused all sorts of tribal conflicts. Then, furthermore, we've fuelled those wars by selling or giving arms to one or both sides. We've supported the toppling of democratically elected governments and supported dictators that allow access to resources. Through the World Bank and IMF we've leant money that funds minority African interests - governments - and do so on the basis of imposing austerity measures on the poor; channelling money away from basic infrastructure such as schools, energy production, water, etc. We subsidise our farming and flood their markets with food that cannot be competed with at a local level. This sort of thing, on a more general level, around the world in poorer countries forces people from the countryside into the cities and creates cheap, slave labour in factories and the like for large manufactures. In other words, these problems relate to the actions of the governments that supposedly represent us. We can change this situation without ever going to a third world country by being informed and selecting a saner, rational form of government rather than the fairly insane, murdering one we presently have.

There's a lot more I could say but I have other stuff to do now.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Ben Rowlands

[ooo]

I'll be coming back to read this thread later!, I've got to go out now.

But I just wanted to throw this in the mix its kind of to do with what Ben is talking about.

Its the extended interview of John Perkins, Author of "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". He basically claims he worked with the US Government in the interested of the largest banking firms in the world to 'screw over' smaller countries. Although this is slightly of topic as its not environmental, I guess there may be a couple of you who haven't seen it and would find it interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqIHKWd9rSc

[Dave Anscombe]

chem-trails are the least of humanity's problems -

But most of the world has nooooooo idea -what game is being played

But remember people im bat -shit-crazy -Good luck

[Dave Anscombe]

I Get labeled ''A conspiracy theorist''

Because im on the right road of ''truth''

and when some one slaps that word on you ''people are conditioned to believe that whats being said is mumbo-jumbo.

im passionate about the truth and the well being of humanity -Not just my people all people!

The ones to blame are the rothschilds -If you care (which you probably dont) but just incase-Find out who they are-who they own what they fund-!

knowledge is power !

[dann2707]

This has gone all too metal gear solidy for me.

[Dave Anscombe]

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

[Matt Vandart]

Here you go...............

http://worldtruth.tv/the-real-reason-hemp-is-illegal/

[Muel]

Here you go...............

http://worldtruth.tv/the-real-reason-hemp-is-illegal/

Awful lot of complete and utter bullshit in that article, especially "Pot is NOT harmful to the human body or mind". So every heavy stoner I've ever known dropped 40 IQ points for no reason then?

[tomturd]

Here you go...............

http://worldtruth.tv/the-real-reason-hemp-is-illegal/

I dunno if you're trolling or not? If you are, then fair play... if not then err, I don't know where to begin.

worldtruth:

The truth is if marijuana was utilized for its vast array of commercial products, it would create an industrial atomic bomb!

Wikipedia:

Over thirty countries produce industrial hemp, including Australia, Austria, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey and Ukraine

that guy needs to lay off the weed

[Dave Anscombe]

Awful lot of complete and utter bullshit in that article, especially "Pot is NOT harmful to the human body or mind". So every heavy stoner I've ever known dropped 40 IQ points for no reason then?

The original research was flawed, and that the lowered IQ scores of the study's participants may have been caused by other factors.-stress-poverty-mental health style of living.

New analysis—conducted by Ole Rogeberg of the Ragnar Frisch Center for Economic Research in Oslo, and also published in PNAS—found that socioeconomic differences among the study group, like education and occupation, contributed to the IQ drop, and not the Green

you are very misinformed On this subject mule....do you ever read ?..Its like its been drilled in to you from a young age? like school or something? is it like one of your core beliefs that marijuana is bad -Heres where weed CAN be an enemy-if you smoke it while your brain is still in its developing stages -early teens to late teens ---YOUR IQ CAN BE LOWERD 8 POINTS!....

Weed is not harmful to the body-It is 1 of the most medicinal plant's known to man!

FLUORIDE lowers your iq-- ten fold- Not only is it in the water supply-its in toothpaste (seek medical advice if swallowed) .fluoridated water is used in canned/tinned foods-ready meals -fizzy drinks beers! You name it!

MARIJUANA-Safer than the verry water you drink!

PROVE ME WRONG!

Edited March 9, 2013 by Dave Anscombe

[Muel]

Prove me wrong muel~!

Normally, I'd not bother as you're clearly mental these days, but here we go...

I know at least 100 people, 5 of which are heavy pot-heads. Every single one of them in school were clever, bright and attentive in conversation. Now they're always in a constant state of potato. Compare that to all of the other people I know who do not exhibit that behavior, and that is proof in my eyes.

Behavior including:

• Unfocussed eyes
• Completely ignoring you mid conversation and going off on a tangent without realising they do it ("What time is it?", "Duddee, can you ever like, smell your own nose?")
• Slurred speech
• Slow speech
• Talking utter bollocks

I've been observing the effects of weed on my friends for years, it can't get any more conclusive in my eyes.

[ZeroMatt]

Lots of spurious nonsense every time you post,If we pick out the only "fact" there it's quite wrong.

Not all of britains water supply has huge amounts of fluoride in it-Just most!

Less than 10% of the population receives water that is fluoridated, even then it's in low amounts. Only just enough to help with lowering rates of demineralising of the enamel, plus if you don't want it you can use one of many domestic filters to remove it.

[Dave Anscombe]

I dunno if you're trolling or not? If you are, then fair play... if not then err, I don't know where to begin.

worldtruth:

Wikipedia:

that guy needs to lay off the weed

If the world started using hemp again-Who would use oil ? No one! The bankers dont want that happening!

Lots of spurious nonsense every time you post,If we pick out the only "fact" there it's quite wrong.

Less than 10% of the population receives water that is fluoridated, even then it's in low amounts. Only just enough to help with lowering rates of demineralising of the enamel, plus if you don't want it you can use one of many domestic filters to remove it.

You still believe its good for teeth!----- :bow: heres a link.But feel free to do your own research http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/medicalresearch.health -------http://www.uk-water-filters.co.uk/fluoride_information.html

WE USE A REVERSE OSMOSIS FILTER

Normally, I'd not bother as you're clearly mental these days, but here we go...

I know at least 100 people, 5 of which are heavy pot-heads. Every single one of them in school were clever, bright and attentive in conversation. Now they're always in a constant state of potato. Compare that to all of the other people I know who do not exhibit that behavior, and that is proof in my eyes.

Behavior including:

• Unfocussed eyes
• Completely ignoring you mid conversation and going off on a tangent without realising they do it ("What time is it?", "Duddee, can you ever like, smell your own nose?")
• Slurred speech
• Slow speech
• Talking utter bollocks

I've been observing the effects of weed on my friends for years, it can't get any more conclusive in my eyes.

Thats not proof thats your observation ! read my post ive thrown in what you need to know! -

Edited March 10, 2013 by Dave Anscombe

[Dave Anscombe]

Also just wanted to say sorry ben for going off track with your topic !

[dann2707]

I know at least 100 people

Hahahahahahaha we all know that's not true

Now they're always in a constant state of potato.

This however made me piss myself and I think i've just woken my rents up haha.

Dave every single post on here from you is just utter f**king nonsense. You're mad. And the prime candidate for whom these conspiracists target. This is f**king hilarious to read though, you make an utter fool of yourself in every topic like this. I'm sure your reply will be something to do with i've been controlled from an early age or something. bahhhh