 McGrew, sorry. How do you answer the environmentalist who claim that 97% of scientists, and he says I don't know if they mean all scientists or specifically climatologists, believe in man-caused global warming and its future disastrous impact. So what do you say to them when they say that? So I think you have to separate a few things here. One is that's a bogus statistic, right? It's not 97%. There is no such thing. So you have to say something like, quickly say something like, well, you know, that 97% thing that you've heard about, that's bogus. That's not real. But it's true that a large percentage, probably a majority, probably an overwhelming majority of scientists who are willing to state an opinion, believe in man-made, caused global alarm. And then you have to say something about, science is not about a vote. Science is not a democracy. It's not about a majority. And then I think you have to say, because at this point, they're thinking, oh, God, he's some kind of, he's, he denies climate change and he's rejecting science or whatever. So there's a danger there. So then what you have to do is say, I mean, this is what I do. Alex Epstein does it differently. What I do is then I say, I don't have a position on whether the globe is warming or not. And I don't even really have a position about whether it's man-made or not. Because I don't think that's the issue. I think the issue is, even if it is warming, even if it is man-made, what do you do about it? And even if it is warming, even if it is man-made, why do you care? Why is the world getting warmer, upset you so much? Why are you getting so excited about, you know, a few more degrees of heat? Actually, like the idea of, you know, I use the Canada becomes habitable, funny line, which people respond to positively, because everybody thinks Canada, except Canadians thinks Canada, and people who live like in Maine and Minnesota think Canada is uninhabitable. So I guess Jennifer actually thinks Canada is habitable because she lives in Michigan in the cold, really freezing part of Michigan. And then you get into discussion about what are the proposals about dealing with climate change, and how those are nuts, and how those are ridiculous, and how those are incredibly damaging, and how those proposals reveal how, in a sense, unserious the people who claim that climate change is an issue are. That is, the proposals are worse, the proposed solutions are worse than any imaginable problem. And I also throw in there, you know, I throw in a line that goes something like, you know, I'm a finance guy, and if you want me to invest in your fund, then one of the first things I ask you is, how have you done in the past? And if you say, well, really badly, then, you know, forget it, you know, past performance is no necessarily indicator of future performance. But it suddenly is, and then, you know, it suddenly is a starting point, right? If all your performance in the past has been negative, I'm not interested in listening to the pitch. Reversed to the mean, come on, you're wrong. Yeah, right. Everything just reversed the mean automatically. So the same goes with scamongering. If you're telling me the world is going to end tomorrow, I want to know how good you are being in your scamongering predictions in the past. So if you were the same people who predicted that overpopulation and mass starvation, if you were the same people who predicted everybody would have cancer because of chemicals, if you were the same people who predicted that global cooling would happen, if you're the same people who predicted, you know, just any, what was it, ozone hole or a million other things would end life on planet Earth as we know it, then I can't take you that seriously. I just can't. And then, but I think the main issue is the solution, right? And the solution can't be not to use fossil fuels. And that solution is revealing of the true motivation, of the true insanity of the position and everything else that's going on. So that's how I deal with it kind of quickly. Of course, if you wanted to deal with it in a more fundamental sense, you'd have to get into the science. And I say, look, I'm not a scientist. I don't have a strong position about whether there's global warming or not, and about whether it's man-made or not. And that's a fact. I don't have a strong position about it. Again, I'm suspicious of those claiming there is. But that's not enough for me to say there's no such thing. I haven't looked at the data closely enough. I haven't examined the evidence closely enough. My suspicion is that there is global warming. My suspicion is man-made factors probably pay a small role in that warming. And my strong suspicion is that that warming is not going to be catastrophic.