And I realized that it's just completely different from normal science. You know, it completely politicized. If you can't ask a question, you know, that's a bad, bad sign. And if you have 100% consensus determining the truth, that's an even worse sign because, you know, the truth in science is whether what you predict agrees with observation. And that wasn't true of the climate science community.

It's an arbitrary definition. And it's that it's time variation on time scales longer than 30 years. It's pretty arbitrary.

I mean, what Will is saying is true, I'm sure. Science of climate has been set back at least two generations by this.

I mean, for instance, you know, the question of what determines the temperature difference between the tropics and the pole, that's actually handled in a third-year graduate course. You know, it deals with hydrodynamic instability, which is a complicated subject. And it's a real problem in a field. It's true throughout science, where you're trusting people to behave, I think, decently, but that material itself is not going to be entirely accessible to everyone.

I mean, Alex is going to bring this up and mislead people about it, but the idea that there's a consensus among scientists about climate change is absolutely true. There has been consistently for years, but there's...