 Sorry I didn't interrupt, but actually that, I've already forgotten my own. What? They what? Was that spoken like a conservative white guy? Yeah, good. Channel my dad. Peter Ellerton, we've developed a strategy based on critical thinking methods to analyse the Ninalist claims. That was tops, give me one more. There wasn't tops then, was it? The past climate change argument is just like that. It's kind of like saying... While you're not doing a very good job, fake news is everywhere. Brilliant. Maybe a bit too much. That's a good, that's a good, that's a good, that's a good thing. John Cook, I research how to miss. If you insist, the first step in analysing a claim is to break it up into its components. Things that... So that's the first step and that's really significant. But what can you do about it? I have that napkin, I'm going to sell that on eBay. This article. Don't you want to wait until I sort of swab my brow with it? But what can you do about it? You were great. The bigger the praise, the more likely you are to say do it again. And we used them all in this paper that we published somewhere. In this case, the third premise is false. It commits the single cause fallacy, ignoring that there can be multiple causes of climate change. Oh, don't do this to me. This is like when I listened to my dad on the phone. I'm just getting started. Which is ironic because I just stopped. Maybe a few different versions of the dabbing. Maybe like a sort of a... Yeah, that kind of dabbing. We're done. We're done. We're done. We're done. We're done. We're done. We're done. Fine. Go.