scientific innovation will curb it, climate change, and it’s instead time for a strategic pivot in the global climate fight from focusing on limiting rising temperatures to fighting poverty and preventing disease. He says a doomsday outlook has led the climate community to focus too much on near-term goals blah blah blah reducing emissions.

And he says the world’s primary goal should instead be to prevent suffering particularly for those in the toughest conditions in the poorest countries.

What is your judgment? In 2016 or so, you know that I publicly committed myself to emphasizing nuclear power as a green technology solution that you would want to do whether there was climate change or not. You know that for 10 years I’ve been telling you that climate models couldn’t possibly be valid for all the reasons that affect any kind of complex model. Doesn’t even have to do with climate change. It just has to do with complex models. They just don’t work.

You know that for 10 years I’ve been advocating very publicly with my full suite of persuasion techniques that the emphasis should change from oh no we’re all going to die from carbon to let’s fix as many problems as we can and get our technology as strong as possible and our economy as strong as possible and that will protect us the most.

That’s exactly what Bill Gates is saying now. So Bill Gates’s opinion on this a little bit different from mine. A little bit, but now 95% compatible. And he’s also in the business of he’s invested in TerraPower. That’s that thorium new gen 4 nuclear power plant.

If you were the guy who invested quite wisely, I don’t know, a decade ago or longer, in nuclear power and it turns out it’s working out. Yeah, you do a strategic pivot because now you have a real genuine path to just making everybody richer and safer at the same time that you can monitor climate change, see if you need to do anything there.

I do think that there’s no way that Bill Gates is unaffected by the fact that sea level has not risen. Are you with me on that? You can imagine some characters like Greta blowing it off if after 20 years of saying the water will rise if it hasn’t risen at all. You could imagine the people who were just non-scientific, you know, just protester types saying oh it’ll happen. It’s gonna happen any moment now.

But Bill Gates is sort of the ultimate rational guy. He’s closer to being a robot than a human, as some of our best billionaires are. There’s no way he’s going to ignore 20 years of things not going the way the models say they will. Not forever. At some point it’s just overwhelming.

I think we reached the overwhelming part where you just had to back down and say all right, let’s fix these gigantic problems that we know how to fix. Let’s get our economy and our technology as sharp as possible. And that’s our best bet against climate change if it’s a problem. I add the if, he doesn’t add the if. So that’s our tiny little difference.

So you give me any credit for that? I doubt that Bill Gates has heard anything I’ve said on the topic directly. But the way persuasion works is you persuade other people and if you do it well they adopt your language because they like the way you said it. So the thing I can add to a process such as this is I can help people who want to be an advocate to agree with me to give them the kind of language that would be persuasive to other people. So I’ve been trying to do this for 10 years.

All right? You’ve watched it. Many of you have been with me the entire time. And it could be a total coincidence that climate change and nuclear power both ended up exactly where I was trying to put them. Exactly where I was trying to put them. That might be a coincidence. Might not be. No way to know.

Anyway, Charlie Sheen was on Bill Maher’s show. What’s that one called? Not his regular show. His Club Random. And Charlie Sheen had what Bill Maher considered an amazingly good idea which is also amazingly compatible with one of my good ideas and amazingly compatible—I think you’ve heard Greg Gutfeld say the same thing but if it comes from Charlie Sheen and the way he said it was especially good let me just tell you what it is.

Why am I giving you this big windup? Let me just tell you what he said.

So Bill Maher was pointing out that most of the crime problem is committed by only about 600 people per city. And then Sheen, so if you’re able to build statistics from that, you clearly know who the fuck they are, meaning the criminals. So why not just take those 600 people and build a special place for them? Call it the 600 building.

And Maher liked that. He goes, “That’s good. That’s very good. And this is why Republicans get elected because Democrats run cities and they don’t do that.”

Now, how many of you remember me saying that at least the homeless—and that would include a lot of people who are repeat criminals as well—should be given their own place to live just away from us. I talked about in California you could almost build it outdoors. It wouldn’t need a ton of heatin