poll that says only 17% of American adults believe climate change will impact where they live. Where they live. Now isn't that funny? As soon as you put the "where you live" part on climate change then suddenly the number of people who believe in it just drops way down because people have usually, if they're adults, have lived wherever they lived for a number of years. And they probably said to themselves, I've been here for a long time and the weather looks the same to me.

So I've been in California for 46 years in roughly the same area of California. Do you know how much the climate has changed in my 46 years of being here? Not really at all. As far as I know it feels and looks the same to me. We go through some periods of drought but California always did, and then we have some rainy years and everything's okay for a while. So is this the same where you live? How many of you live somewhere where when you first moved there it was a different climate than it is now? Is there anybody? No. If you have your own experience you just look around and you go it doesn't seem like it's any different where I live. So that's going to have an impact over time and people are less worried about big horrible weather disasters than they used to be and they should because we get better at handling weather disasters every year of human existence.

According to Princeton University, a writer named Colton Poore is writing about this. Did you know that geothermal energy has a lot of potential? Yes you did because you listened to my podcast. Now geothermal means that if you dig a hole that's deep enough you'll get to where the earth is super hot. And if you were to pump some water down there, or if there was a natural water source, you could superheat that water and create energy from it and it would be a real clean source of energy. No CO2 if you don't like CO2. But it's not really economical. Most places don't have the ideal place where you could dig a hole that was deep enough and the rocks would be in the right place close to the surface and all that stuff. So if you were to look at should we go hog wild on geothermal right away? Well somebody would do a CBO-like economic analysis and they would say it doesn't look like the economics are good.

However according to this article which seems right to me, the thing they don't include when they look at the economics of geothermal is that we would start by picking the ideal places. So the place you put geothermal on day one is going to be where it is economical. And then you're going to learn much more about how to do it economically. And then you'll do the next one where there's yet another place where it's perfect for geothermal. So the costs would be much lower than if you were in a place that's bad for it. And so the thinking is that we are underestimating how much of an impact geothermal will someday have because we assume that the economics will not improve that much but in fact it wouldn't be hard to improve the economics. All you have to do is make sure you're starting in the places where it's economical and then the rest would be sort of the normal decrease in technology costs over time. So they think maybe it could be the third best green source of energy until we get to better nuclear I guess.

Meanwhile over at Harvard, Harvard's having a tough time because of all the pressure from the Trump administration, but according to Newsmax they're thinking about creating a conservative think tank. So would that help? Well it wouldn't be nothing because Harvard has almost no conservatives there. So if they said hey here's our big old Harvard conservative think tank that would maybe give them a little bit of relief from the criticism. But reportedly also the Crimson, that would be the Harvard newspaper, is reporting that Harvard is dismantling some of its DEI apparatus. So it looks like Harvard is at least doing a lot