change and that climate change is out as a topic and energy affordability is in. In other words, the Democrats just found out that everything Republicans have been saying forever is the right approach that you want energy affordability and ultimately that will get you better climate and everything else. So yes, affordability.

So let me ask you this. If the Democrats thought that was their existential problem, climate change, and they've all seemingly decided to deemphasize it, does that mean it was ever real? And did they ever believe it was real? Because how in the world do you go from this is the biggest problem civilization has ever faced, climate change, to why don't we stop talking about it? Let's deemphasize this and work on energy prices. Doesn't that tell you they never believed it or does it tell you they did believe it but they don't anymore because the data has not performed according to their models? Which is it? But it does seem terribly important to understand the world that it went from the biggest problem in the world to maybe we just shouldn't mention it. Let's just downplay this a little bit. My goodness.

All right. Well, Marc Benioff, CEO and founder of Salesforce, apparently he's apologized for agreeing with Trump temporarily for just like a minute. He had to apologize. What he agreed on was in some conversation somebody asked him if he'd ever be in favor of the National Guard helping San Francisco with their crime and he made the mistake of acting like that might be a good idea under the right circumstances. Now under the right circumstances. So of course it's not just yes it's you know there might be a situation where that makes sense. Now that is the most reasonable thing that any leader could ever say. Totally reasonable. Yes, if crime is out of control, I can imagine a situation in which you would want to get it under control temporarily. But he got so much pushback. He said, quote, "Having listened closely to my fellow San Franciscans and our local officials, I do not believe that I want that." All right. So he got beaten back to his side.

Sam Harris has emerged again, and he's being provocative. So Sam thinks that the Joe Rogan style of conversation in podcasts and especially when he talks to Elon Musk in podcasts has done in social media is amplified misinformation and conspiracy thinking and then Sam goes further and he said and is frankly getting people killed. Do you believe that things that Joe Rogan and Elon Musk have said on the podcast are in fact getting people killed? Not just risking, not just putting people at risk, but are getting people killed. Do you think that's fair to say?

It might be slightly fair because they do talk about important health and lifestyle related things and probably there's somebody who made a bad decision because of something they heard. I don't know what. It wouldn't have been ivermectin then. But don't you think that free speech is dangerous by its nature? Why would you pick out these two people as the only ones whose free speech is going to hurt somebody? Don't you think that Sam Harris's free speech would kill people? If you were to look at all the things that Sam Harris has promoted versus all the things that Elon and Joe Rogan have promoted on podcasts, which one do you think you could determine killed the most people? I don't know if you can tell.

But if your problem with other people's free speech is that it might be dangerous, I don't know how you can defend that. Wouldn't you say that things I've said would be dangerous? Right? I mean, if you're in the podcasting business, you sooner or later you're going to say something that is dangerous because somebody's going to take your advice. Even if you say don't take my advice. So I talk about a lot of things and then I say but don't take my advice you know financially or medically but people will in the real world people going to hear me say something and then even right after I say don't take my advice they're going to go take that advice because it feels right to them. So will that mean that I kill some people? Maybe. Yeah. Unfortunately, if you want to live in a world with free speech and a dynamic podcasting environment, which we have, people are going to die. Absolutely.

Now, I think that he may be a little bit overworried about the size of the risk, but I wouldn't say that nobody will ever die because of things they heard on podcasts. Of course they will. It's a big world and there'll be lots of things said and lots of crazy people who believe anything that's said and yeah of course there will be situations in which ordinary podcast conversations lead to people dying but what would you do instead you know it's okay if somebody like Sam Harris is raising the alarm because I have also made the criticism that the podcast model has a problem. You've heard me say this before, right? It's the documentary effect. If you put somebody on a three-hour podcast, especially a high reputation one like Joe Rogan's, people will believe whatever they say when they're done. Most people because they would get three hours of one point of view and no hours of the opposing view. Of course it would be persuasive. Of course it would.

So I've said that for the important topics, you know, not just the fun ones, but for the important topics, you pretty much you just got to have a fact checker there at the same time. Somebody who would disagree but fact check you as you go so that at least the