 I mean it really seems to someone on the other side that anyone who disagrees with them, anyone on the other side is just an idiot. Like how can you even question it when the evidence is so overwhelming, when 97% of the scientists believe in it? How can you, haven't you seen the hockey stick graph? This is, there's been dozens of different hockey stick graphs all pretty much saying the same thing. How could you possibly, you must be a denier? Like how could anybody in good conscience actually not believe this? It just seems incomprehensible until, and if you believe that, you're not going to bother even to look into what the other side is saying, which would be, you know, a critique of the temperature proxies that the hockey stick is built on, the ice core samples and the tree rings and things like that. I mean every single piece of it is subject to a critique. And then they'll talk about the medieval warm period and, you know, there were grapes being grown in Denmark and Viking settlements in Greenland and the early Holocene islands, forested islands, forested places that are now barren tundra and the receding snow, the receding glaciers in the Alps revealing trees that had been growing there above what is now the snow line a few thousand years ago. And so like they have their entire other set of evidence and they think that the other side must be totally diluted because they're not taking into the countless evidence. They're denying this evidence and here it is, but they just write it out of their research. And so both sides having pretty much the same view of the other. So to either side, and I could do the same thing the other direction, like, you know, populations of waterfowl that are threatened because spring has come two weeks earlier and they're, I can't remember exactly how it works, but like the flowers or the plants are growing earlier and everything's out of whack, you know, like there's these knock-on effects that happens that happen when the seasons change, but the animal migration hasn't hasn't gone along with it and so forth. Like, and how could you just how could you deny this? And what about the methane, the methane bubbles and the melting permafrost, like they're not even considering this and and so they're like each side just seems to be totally diluted to the other. And neither side, I find, is really going deeply into the best arguments of their opponents. It's quite the opposite. They take the weakest arguments of their opponents and set up a straw man and demolish that and feel really good about that because they've made the other side look bad, which is a tactic of war, of information war. When a narrative is itself a weapon, you can't let any data in that will dilute your narrative. So what becomes important is maintaining your narrative rather than serving what's true if you conceive of it as a war. And the other side is a priority already wrong. And that means that you will never be able to transcend your narrative. You will be impervious to being wrong to it. And you will never admit that you were wrong. And this isn't just climate change that's locked in this kind of deadlock. So a long story short, I will appear diluted or disingenuous even to either side because it's so obvious. How am I not getting it? That's the lot of the pacifist. And I think that the pattern of war thinking is the same pattern that is causing the ecological crisis, the degrading of the other. And I'm not saying that I'm not I'm not sticking out a position in between both sides. It's not a compromise. It's a position outside off the entire spectrum. Temperamentally, I am more in sync with the alarmists. And I do think that the skeptics are in some form of denial, even if they're right about global warming, even if they're right that I don't know, the solar minimum, the declining magnetic field of the sun will allow more cosmic rays to come in that stimulate cloud formation that reflect more sunlight and that cool the earth. Even if they're right that we're due for another ice age, they're still in denial that we are interdependent with life on earth and that our next step as a species, as a collective, as a civilization is to turn toward service to life and to heal the damage that's been done. And a lot of damage has been done over the last few thousand years. Vast areas have been converted to desert. The entire Middle East used to be fertile, the cradle of civilization, the cedars of Lebanon, the Greek isles all used to be forested. Plato writes about this, the deforestation and the advent of drought and ecological degradation. I mean, it's been happening for thousands of years. When's it going to stop? It's not going to stop by itself. It's going to stop when we see nature differently and we relate differently and we understand our purpose here differently. No longer the conquerors, no longer separate. Anyone who is in denial of this is in denial, is a denier. Whether you believe in climate change or not, whether you, even if you think, yeah, climate change is a serious problem, we've got to institute geoengineering and and put wind turbines everywhere so that we can more cleverly exploit nature as a thing. You're a denier too. You're in denial of what your heart knows. Well, maybe I'm, maybe I'm the one who's in denial. Maybe nature is a thing. It's not for me to convince you with evidence of that. That's a choice, actually. We don't base our choices of belief on evidence, actually. We choose what is aligned with who we are right now, what we choose a world story that provides a suitable habitation for our development in a current stage. And we're very capable of arranging the evidence and the reasons to fit whatever story we have about the world. There's plenty of data points that you can fit into the world as a live story and there's plenty of data points that you could construe to believe in a mechanistic world of force and mass, generic particles. How are you going to make that choice? It's not that those who choose otherwise are ignorant and stupid. Am I stupid? How are you going to make that choice? I have a suggestion, which is make the choice that best represents and most resonates with who you really feel yourself to be and who you want to become. And that brings up the question, who do we want to be? Humanity. What do we want to become? And what world will we live in? I would like us to make a different choice than the one that we have as a collective bin making that is killing the world. If we hold the story of the world as dead, we will kill the world. I would like a different choice. So I'm practicing it and deprogramming myself from the perceptions of world as thing, drawing on other sources of knowledge, other world stories that have been held for a long time by indigenous people, by cultures of memory, as Orland Bishop calls them, traditional cultures. All of them believed that the world is alive, full of beings and maybe as our own systems break down and the story that seemed to bring us to such heights of accomplishment, no longer bear those fruits. And we can no longer tell ourselves that every generation is happier than the last. Maybe that breakdown will bear the humility that opens us up to entertaining other ways of looking at the world, other ways of knowing, other stories of what is. That's where the environmental crisis is taking us. It's to, to that level, to really you could call it an initiation, a revolution in who we know ourselves to be. Yes, thank you for giving attention to that possibility.