Gregory Wrightstone říká, že diskusi o klimatických změnách doprovázejí „lži“ a „agenda“ kontroly společnosti

CO2 is cited as a dangerous emission that is the primary cause of climate change. Yet historical data and modern science show that not only is CO2 not as bad as it sounds, but that information is being falsified. This is according to Gregory Wrightstone, executive director of the CO2 Coalition. We speak with Gregory Wrightstone about CO2, about suppressed data, and about how science and climate change are being manipulated for a political agenda. Gregory Wrightstone, thanks for being on Crossroads. Oh, glad to be on with you. There's a lot to talk about when it comes to climate change right now, as usual. Yeah, seriously. Actually, I just did an episode recently about the proposal to dim the sun to create aerosols in the stratosphere to reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth. I mean, the types of things they're proposing with this are unimaginable. It's hard to believe they're actually even talking about stuff like this. That's an incredibly bad idea. The unintended consequences of something like that, they have no idea what's going to happen and how poorly or how horribly it would affect agriculture. After all, for photosynthesis, you need three things, carbon dioxide, which we're getting more and more of, water, and sunlight. And now they're attacking nitrogen in fertilizers. And so, a lot's going wrong here in policy. Well, you know, and this is kind of what we're going at. They're using the climate narrative to do really extreme things. And I want to get into some of those issues right now with you in terms of what they're doing, but I also want to get into climate change itself because, you know, I know my viewers have been asking me, you know, can we actually debunk climate change, this kind of stuff. Before we get into that, though, because I would like to go into that with you, I understand they're talking about even a climate lockdown now and basically taking a lesson from COVID-19 on how far they can push it. Are they really planning to do this, do a climate lockdown? I wouldn't put it past them. They've done some really idiotic, stupid things so far. I mean, their war on fossil fuels, now this new war on nitrogen and nitrogen fertilizers, what you just talked about, geoengineering, blocking the sun. These climate lockdowns have been considered seriously by some in what I call the climate industrial complex. And I just don't understand why they're doing it. Who are the people pushing for the idea of a climate lockdown? Because we know that I think California is talking about declaring an emergency. Biden's talked about declaring a national emergency around climate change. Who's pushing this? Well, they're the usual suspects, but the ones pushing lockdown per se and coming out and saying it are really on the fringe of this. The others that are promoting this green agenda won't come out publicly and say lockdown, climate lockdown, because it's been proposed by a lot of conservatives that are linking COVID. The COVID lockdowns proposed these proposed climate change lockdowns. And so you get the leaders of the movement like John Kerry and others. They're going around the edges of climate lockdown and not actually coming out and saying it. I see. Yeah, I see. Now, I mean, how serious is this? Explain this to us a bit more. They seem to have taken a lesson from how far they can push things with COVID, the idea they can declare a national emergency around COVID. Are they really trying to apply that same concept now, whether lockdowns or anything else? Are they really trying to apply that same type of model to climate change? Well, I'm not sure about the lockdowns per se, but what they're trying to do, what they would love to have you do is stay in your home and not drive your car unless it's electric. They want you to not heat your home with natural gas. It's OK to heat your home with an electric heat pump. They're pushing all these ideas that will economically cripple the United States. And we're seeing the effects of this with runaway inflation. They're intentionally inflating energy costs, increasing energy costs. And Joe Biden, when he was running, stated that. He said that they needed to get the cost of fossil fuel, electricity and energy. We need to get those up. And why is that? That's to make these renewables, wind and solar in particular, look more economically attractive. And so they need much, much higher gasoline prices, natural gas and coal fired electricity prices. And what they're doing and their policies are actually doing that. So how are they intentionally rising the prices of gas and so on? Like, how are they intentionally doing this? Just look at just look at oil production. They've shut down oil leasing in the Gulf of Mexico. There's supposedly been lawsuits to open that back up. They nixed two large Alaskan projects. And think about this, that one of them was the Alaska Natural Wildlife National Wildlife Refuge. And the other was the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, not to be confused with the one in Louisiana. Those two large oil fields are two of the largest undeveloped oil fields in North America. And it's really important to think about this. You're I'm sure your viewers know about Prudhoe Bay, the huge discoveries there, the extraordinarily expensive oil pipeline coming down out of Prudhoe Bay in the United States. Well, that pipeline right now is reaching or near to reach its economic limits because the production has been declining. When that happens, they're just going to have to shut the pipeline down and dismantle it. And so this new oil from these other oil projects, we're going to flow through that pipeline and extend the life of that pipeline for many, many, many decades. When that pipeline is decommissioned because there's not enough oil flowing through it, we'll strand all those remaining oil reserves up in Alaska. And that's just one example. They shut down the pipeline coming down from the Canadian tar sands into the United States. It was going to bring 830,000 barrels a day into the United States. So it's all about supply and demand. What they're doing, driving prices up by decreasing the supply. The only way we were able to decrease the demand is through this. Like you're saying, they did it well with the COVID lockdown. We stopped driving a lot. But once your gasoline prices and diesel prices get high enough, that's a real disincentive for somebody to drive much. And it's more of an incentive to get these electric cars. People have been pushed around a lot with this, just to put it that way. On one side, of course, you have the memory. People remember when they were paying just a couple dollars per gallon when Trump was still president. People remember that the United States was a net exporter of oil. We remember that. It wasn't that long ago. And people are watching what's happening now. They're saying, well, what's going on? Biden, if you listen to him, he's blaming it on the producers rising the prices. He's saying it's their fault for rising the prices. They just lower the prices. They're saying, what do you mean lower the prices? You're restricting us. I mean, what is really causing this? What happened that made America go from being a net exporter to being like where we're at right now? Well, there's a lot of things going on there. We see the retreat of the capital markets from oil and gas projects and coal projects. And that's this ESG movement, environmental, social and governance, pushing back, saying, you know, you need a high ESG score if you're a company. And if you invest in oil and gas, you're going to be punished. But the other problem with this, when I talk to energy companies, they're still able to get not maybe not the Exxons and the rest, but these private companies are able to get access to capital. One of the big things, the problems I talk to people is insurance, that the insurance, these huge insurance companies aren't willing to insure oil and gas companies because this crazy ESG movement. It's all demonization of fossil fuels. I see. Now, I want to get into, there was some other interesting that came about that if you listen to what the Biden administration has been saying, they keep talking about oil as being part of an extraordinary transition. I think the exact word a lot of them are using, an extraordinary transition. It conflicts with the narrative that they're claiming that, again, on one side, they're saying it's the fault of the producers charging too much. On the other side, they do, as you've been mentioning, been creating policy that is causing the problem. And then they tell us on the side that it's part of a transition. What are they transitioning to? What's the end game with all this? Their end game is it's a zero fossil fuels. That's their end game. I was skeptical up until recently when Biden took over. They want to go to net zero, and we just can't do it. And if you think about it, we right here at the CO2 Coalition, we write a lot about energy poverty in the developing world. Our research associate is Vijay Jayaraj in southern India. He writes a lot about this. And we get people like the World Bank that are moving away and not funding any oil or coal projects. And these are things that are needed for Africa. We've got several billion people around the world that are living in energy poverty, that don't have access to electricity, that are cooking over dried dung and wood in their homes, leading to cataracts and all kinds of health problems. Some four million people, as estimated by the UN, die each year from this use of dried dung and wood when they're cooking in their homes. And we can give them low-cost, reliable, abundant energy from clean burning coal. We can build coal plants where the only thing that comes out of the smokestack is carbon dioxide and water vapor, neither of which are pollutants. Well, let's get into that, because what we're being told is that that carbon dioxide is killing the environment and it's going to create the apocalypse. In New York City, I've mentioned on my show, they have Sesame Street ads where Big Bird is holding the earth and it's on fire and there's crying children watching him. And it says apocalypse on it. I mean, this is the message being given to kids. And it's completely opposite of the truth. The truth is, CO2 is a hugely beneficial molecule. We're seeing the earth greening and thriving. We're breaking crop growth records year after year, country after country, because of the combination of more warming and more CO2. The warming allows longer growing seasons. The more CO2 is fueling crop growth by carbon dioxide enhancement. And it's a wonderful, wonderful story. And if you look on the back of my SUV, I've got a bumper sticker that says, I heart CO2. And the motto we have here at the CO2 Coalition is, if you look at our big banner we've got out there, it says, we love CO2 and so should you. So we're huge proponents of more CO2. By almost every metric we look at, the earth's ecosystems are thriving and prospering. And humanity is benefiting from that. We should welcome this. And instead, they're trying to kill crop production. They don't want you heating your home. They want to tell you how to heat your home, how to drive your car, what car you'll drive. So again, my big story, I'm writing my second book right now. And it's really about the many benefits we see from modest warming and increasing CO2. And I'll tell you one thing, the story resonates with people. I also, I love to research and write about the strong relationship between the rise and fall of climate and temperature and the rise and fall of civilizations. And if we look back through time, go back several thousand years, there were three other, we're in a warming trend right now. There's no doubt about it. It's been warming for 300 plus years. But if we look back, there were three other great warming periods. And each of those warming periods that were warmer than today, they were called climate optima. And they were called that for a good reason. Each one of those warming periods was hugely beneficial for mankind. Life was good. Food was bountiful. Great civilizations and empires arose. And then, for example, the first great warming period during the Bronze Age, it was called the Minoan War period. The first great civilizations rose up, the Minoans, the Hittites, the Babylonians, the Assyrians. And then it started getting cold. And all of those civilizations crashed and cratered at about the same time related to this cold. It was called the Late Bronze Age Collapse. And we see that repeated time and time again. Warm period, beneficial, cold period, crop failure, famine, pestilence, and mass depopulation is what we find. And it's just opposite of what we're being told, isn't it? It is. But explain that, because what we're being told is that right now is kind of an anomaly, that power plants and cars and cows and all these things and fertilizers, that they're creating these carbon dioxides that are causing warming, and that it's an anomaly in history to the extent that it's going to bring about this apocalyptic disaster. And you're saying that actually in the past, in times when they didn't have power plants or cars, they had probably a lot of cattle, but before they had power plants and cars, and actually they did not have industrial farming, that it was actually warmer. Explain that. There was more carbon dioxide, essentially, at least in terms of the warming of the environment, we assume. But explain that, though. Oh, no, we had much lower carbon dioxide than today. But the temperatures were warmer. And that flies in the face of this idea that carbon dioxide is driving temperature increases. The other warming periods and the cold periods, carbon dioxide was relatively flat. We were probably at, oh, 280 to 300 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. We're about 420 right now. So we've increased 140 parts per million. But those other warming periods, if you look back, the most recent one, the medieval warm period, they were growing barley on Greenland. You can't grow that there now. In the Roman warm period, the Romans were growing citrus in the north of England near Hadrian's Wall. In that first one we talked about, the Minoan warm period, they were growing a crop called millet in Scandinavia, which is only grown now in subtropical areas. So just looking at that, and we can look at historical records of where grapes were being grown, where olives were being grown during these times, to find out that there's a lot of things we use, we call them proxies for temperature. And we can use that to estimate, at least we can see relatively it was warmer than it is today. We can go to China, for example, snowfall records. If you go back, they kept great records of snowfall. When was the first snowfall? And if the first snowfall came early, very early, it was probably a colder climate. So we use things like that to estimate temperatures. And so what I say is we should welcome the warmth. And I'm going to tell you, it's going to occur. We're going to get another cold period coming up. Cold should be feared. We should fear the cold and welcome the warmth. That's what history tells us. Well, and this is what's bizarre, is what you're suggesting is that, well, one, it's been warmer in the past. If we want to talk about climate change, you know, maybe medieval Europe and the Roman Empire were doing something that we weren't, and it didn't kill them. It didn't kill them. It wasn't the apocalypse. They were further along in this than we are. And, you know, here we are still as humanity alive today. We can look at their records, and it was actually beneficial for them and not harmful. But what you're saying is that the harmful stage is when that is reduced. Oh, absolutely. When it becomes cold. And it seems like that's what they're trying to manufacture right now. Like they're trying to create that type of stage. Exactly. Is what it seems. Exactly. And Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State, who I've been writing a lot about, you know, he was asked, what's the ideal temperature for the Earth? He says, well, it was before we started adding CO2, back before the industrial. Well, what would that put us? He'll put us squarely in the middle of the Little Ice Age. The Little Ice Age, let me tell you, was horrific. Half the population of Iceland perished. A third of the population of the world perished. It was a very, very bad, dark time for the Earth, as we see through the other previous cold periods. And they went by names called like the Greek Dark Ages and the Dark Ages. Those were cold periods. And they were called Dark Ages for a time because civilizations pretty much collapsed. We didn't see much. The next cold period we get is going to, it mainly affects crop growth. And we'll do better now than we did back in the medieval warm period, because we're not moving food around with box carts. We'll be able to handle it better. Maybe Californians will be sooner. Yeah, maybe so. I don't know. That's certainly a possibility. But we'll probably handle it better. But things we're doing, for example, I've been learning a lot about agriculture in India because of Vijay. It turns out that the great revolution for India came in the early 1980s with genetically modified crops that were drought resistant. India had been plagued for thousands of years with droughts and famines because of droughts, because the monsoons come and the monsoons go. And so the years that the monsoons don't rain, it's a bleak time. Well, they've now got genetically modified crops that are growing that are somewhat drought resistant. And the other good thing about CO2 is the crops need less water. More CO2 means less water that they need. And that's because CO2, of course, if you remember back to middle school, we just talked photosynthesis. You need water, sunlight, and CO2. And with high CO2 levels, like we have and hopefully will continue, the plants don't have to – it's called transpiration. It's kind of breathing in and out, if you will. And by the breathing transpiring out, they're also emitting oxygen, but they're also emitting water in the form of water vapor. And there's a lot of water loss because of that. Because of the CO2, that doesn't occur as much. They retain more water, and plants don't need as much water. And then that, again, that's helping reduce fires around the world. And that's right. I said fire reduction is being helped by more climate change because it leads to higher soil moisture. And in fact, the fires, if you look – again, nobody knows it. If you just look at what the media tells you, you think the fires are at an all-time high. We had five times the number of fires in the area burned 80 years ago in the 20s and 30s than what we have today. And you just – that's documented. It just is. There's so much that I got into this. Josh, I got to tell you, when I – this was a search for the truth that I did when I wrote my first book. It was my own personal search for the truth. And what I found, frankly, shocked me. I was amazed at how much misinformation was out there and how much science and the scientific process was being trampled on. But, you know, what we're being told is that science is settled. You know, science is settled. What was the big moment you had where it just clicked that what they're saying is – I think it was fires. I think it was fires because they clearly state that man-made climate change is causing an increase in fire. And there has been a slight increase in area burned, very slight, over the last several decades. And we can – I don't want to go into it in detail now, but that has more to do with forest management than it does. And then if you look back – Like California making it so you can't clear underbrush and things like that. Go ahead. Yeah, so it was fires. And if you look now at the fire data that you go to the NIFC, and they have data that goes back – starts in 1983. But they have data that goes back to 1928. But they don't present it. You can't go get it anymore. I got it before they took it down. Why aren't they showing that? Because the fires are five times as many. We've had a huge decrease in fires. And why did they start it in 1983? 1983 had the lowest number of fires and lowest area burned. So if you're going to make things look bad, you want to start your chart at the lowest number. And that's what they did. And they removed the old stuff. They removed the old records. Yeah. Actually, the U.S. Census Bureau kept that. The other thing I look at – I'm just finishing up a section of my new book now on extinctions. The U.N. came out with a report a year and a half ago claiming that the extinctions were skyrocketing. There will be one million extinctions over the next several decades. And my alarm bell started going off. I said, wait a minute. So I went back and I took a look at the very same data that they used. I looked at the chart. It did look alarming. It just was skyrocketing. But they only had one data point per century, which was odd to me. We have a lot more data than that. So I went back and looked at actually the data, and I did it in 10-year increments and found that extinctions peaked in the late 1800s, early 1900s, and they've been in significant decline ever since, declining, completely opposite. And this one million extinctions over decades would require 25,000 to 30,000 extinctions per year. You know what it's been for the last 40 years? Two. Two extinctions. Not 2,000, not 200. Two per year. Well, we'll get to 30,000 pretty quickly. No, we won't. The big story there should have been, and the U.N. should have concluded, we're doing a really, really good job protecting our endangered species. And that should have been the conclusion. But, no, they had to jump through statistical hurdles. I'm sure they looked at the data and said, oh, boy, this is bad. Extinctions are in decline. We can't put a report out that says that. We have to show climate crisis, and there's a climate emergency. But that's what they did. And that's a great example right there, just so clear. I used the exact same data that they did from that IUCN Red List data, which is the gold standard for endangered and extinct species. Well, you know, what you're saying, all this taken together, paints a very different picture from what most of us have been told. And it raises a real question, well, two real questions. One, are the people pushing these narratives actually doing it because they believe in climate change? Do they actually believe this stuff? Or maybe there's some true believers, but maybe there's some who know they're kind of pulling the strings. What is the goal, as you see it? What's the end game with all this? I get asked that a lot. You're asking me why are they lying to us, aren't you? Basically, but in a nicer way. And I don't know. I get asked that. I'll tell you the same thing I tell other hosts that interview me. You're just as qualified to tell me why they're doing that as I am. My job as a scientist is to say, okay, this is what they're telling you, and here's what the facts are. So I can't look inside men's and women's souls to see their motivation, but I do know they want to shut people like me up. They want to shut up the people. And my fellow colleagues here at the CO2 Coalition, we have 110 of some of the top scientists in the world, physicists, chemists, climatologists that are studying this, and they believe this, I do. And we're growing every week. And so by shutting me up, I'll just tell you, LinkedIn banned me permanently after I posted temperature data that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uses. And I showed it in a different light. It was the same data. And they banned me. And they were removing just about everything I posted up to the end. My very last post on LinkedIn, it's kind of funny, actually. My very last post, I said, I think I'm about to be banned and deplatformed by LinkedIn. Well, they took it down, removed it, called it false and misleading, and then banned and deplatformed me. I mean, people are having a hard time with this issue overall, because it's very hard to find information that contradicts the general narratives. One of the main reasons is that they deplatform people. If you're a doctor or a scientist and you question it, just like with COVID, just like with the vaccines, they will silence you. They will attack you. They'll even try to attack you professionally. I mean, if you question vaccines as a doctor in some countries, like Australia, they could revoke your medical license. And it's the same type of thing they're doing in other areas, to scientists, to doctors, where if people question the prevailing narratives, they get attacked. And then when they get everybody who's willing to speak saying the same thing, they say, look at this consensus. All of you need to listen to the science, because that's us. What do you say to this? Well, we're fighting back. I think we're winning the war with the general population. I go around, I talk to just random people about this, because that's what I do. I talk about climate change. And I just find that just about everybody I talk to is thirsty for this information. And there are a couple sources. Of course, my book, Inconvenient Facts, I have the 60 facts lined out. And we've also got a smartphone app called Inconvenient Facts. It's a free app, and it's got all the data. You can have it in the palm of your hands that when you're talking to your Uncle Billy or your nephew George or whoever, you can pull it out and show them what the actual truth of the matter is. All the facts are sourced and referenced. It's a great asset. Or go to the co2coalition.org. It's a great resource. We have great, great information up there. And, again, we write a lot about energy poverty and the developing world. Well, and based on what you're saying, the restricting of energy is a human rights abuse. It should be in terms of the way it's actually impacting people in countries where people are dying because they don't have it. And not only that, think about this. People do not understand the vast resources we have in this country. I'm a geologist. I did the first work on what's called the Marcellus Shale in the Appalachian Basin. While we were researching this, it's the largest gas field in the world, we looked at this. The hair on the back of your neck is about ready to go up. We looked at the top 10 conventional gas fields in the world. They combined did not equal what the Marcellus was in terms of gas in place. The top 10 combined didn't equal the Marcellus. And that's just one reservoir out of three super giant and mega giant fields in the Appalachian Basin. And yet New York is banning pipelines so we can't get that gas to New England where they really need it. That's a big deal. It is. This is one of the things I have trouble wrapping my head around. Why are we importing gas from Saudi Arabia? Why are we dealing with Russia, basically using gas as a political tool against Europe? When Hillary Clinton with Uranium One knew, because of the intelligence of the Obama administration, that Russia was trying to use the control of energy, including nuclear energy, as a political tool. Energy is becoming a political tool. And who controls it? It controls Europe. Who controls it? It controls America. Who controls it becomes rich beyond their wildest dreams. When we're sitting on resources that can open it up and save the lives of people dying in Africa, as you mentioned, and possibly people risking freezing to death come this winter. Well, let's talk about New England, and particularly natural gas in New England. Most of the electricity generated in that New England grid system is from natural gas. About a third of its nuclear, about 60 or some percent, is natural gas fired. And natural gas prices elsewhere in the country is at about $7 or $8 per MCF. I just saw in July and in August, it spiked to over $40 an MCF in New England. And that's because they can't get enough of it. Remember, I just said we had this huge, giant, vast, enormous reservoir sitting just south of New England in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, eastern Ohio. And you can't get the gas up there. Nor can they import liquefied natural gas into New England. And the reason for that, so they could import low-cost, abundant American LNG from Louisiana and Texas, but the Jones Act prohibits that. Now, that's because the Jones Act says if you're going to transport one commodity from one American port to another, it has to be an American-flagged carrier. There are no American-flagged LNG carriers. So they're not allowed to do that. So they have to buy all of their liquefied natural gas from Algeria, from Spain, from Saudi Arabia at a much higher price. And that's why just recently their electricity prices tripled. Just talked to a business owner in New Hampshire who saw his bill go from $1,700 a month to $4,900 a month. This is a business owner. That hurts. And it's going to keep going up. And that's because of stupid state policies like New England banning pipelines and federal policies like the Jones Act. It just doesn't make sense. It doesn't. It doesn't make sense, actually. I mean, even more ironic, you said it's this flag thing, but we can't buy American natural gas. We've got to buy it from Algeria or whatever like that. How is that the American flag, right? What blows my mind with natural gas, too, is I don't feel that old, but in my lifetime, I'm from San Diego originally. I remember when natural gas was called the clean energy. I remember when natural gas was called the one we wanted, when that was the solar or the wind turbine. Natural gas used to be that. When they started transitioning buses to natural gas in California, they put it in big words alongside the buses. It had powered by natural gas because they made it seem like it was the clean energy. What happened to that narrative? It is the clean energy. When you burn methane, the byproduct is water vapor and carbon dioxide, both very beneficial molecules. We haven't even touched on nitrogen and the demonization of nitrous oxide and nitrogen fertilizer. I cannot believe it. It's going to lead to crop failure and famine. If they continue down that road, it will lead to millions of deaths because about 60% of crop growth is turbocharged by this nitrogen fertilizer. We'll explain that. They keep adding items to the list. Remember, it used to be aerosols. It was the aerosols and stuff like that. It was burning a hole in the ozone layer. Then it was coal power. Then it was gas. Then it was natural gas. Now it's nitrates. They keep adding things to the list they want to remove from the markets. I think we're starting to see the impact of it finally. Talk about the nitrates. How does that fit with this picture, and what does it mean? It's a minor greenhouse gas along with methane. We've got a paper where our chairman, Will Happer, one of the top physicists in the world, is working on right now. We looked, and there weren't really any other papers dealing with this nitrogen as a greenhouse gas. He's actually finishing it up right now. According to him, nitrous oxide and methane combined, they continue in the same trends they are today. Now, you're sitting down, I hope, that that warming effect is going to be one-tenth of one degree by the year 2100. That's almost below our ability to measure it. They want to starve the population, shut down agriculture. The Netherlands want to get rid of 50% of their farmlands and farms. Canada is now trying to adopt it. It's just crazy. We should celebrate nitrogen fertilizer for all it's done. People are facing these things. I know there's large-scale protests in the Netherlands that are still ongoing. They're talking about moving the same policies, as you mentioned, to Canada, parts of the UK, New Zealand. They're talking about it in the United States. Germany is talking about it. The United Nations has set forward policies on it. They're trying to adopt and push everywhere. Given this whole picture we're talking about, all this issue, people want to know what do they do. What do we do about this? Because we can see what the powers that be are doing. We can see how they're lying about it. What do we do? That's a good question. Educate yourself. Learn as much as you can. Become a proponent of fossil fuels. Learn about the benefits of more CO2. One of the problems I have, the people that should be championing our cause, the Republicans, too many of them want to go light green instead of dark green. Oh, well, we can't spend $3 trillion. That's too much. Let's just spend $850 billion. No, no. One penny spent to stop a nonexistent problem is one penny too much. Let's focus that money. If you're going to have to spend it, let's put it on real problems. I mean, there are really serious problems, environmental problems out there, and one that doesn't get talked, invasive species that are just horrible. And actually, the invasive species like cheatgrass are one of the main causes of the fires in Oregon and California. You may not be aware of that. A lot of those fires were actually grass fires that destroyed communities. Because of the cheatgrass, it's an invasive species. It's a terrible problem. But let's spend money on that. Let's spend money on building seawalls a little bit because our sea level, yes, it's rising, but it's been rising long before we started adding CO2, and it's rising at about the same rate as it did 150 years ago. It's not accelerating. If you're going to spend money, let's spend it wisely, not trying to solve a nonexistent problem. Yeah, so you heard it, folks. Expose the watermelons. Exactly. Green on the outside, red on the inside. Gregory Wrightstone, thank you so much. A real pleasure talking with you. Thank you.