't remind you that the Dilbert calendar is still slightly for sale, meaning that we're getting close to selling out, which is both true and a mechanism of persuasion to tell you that there are shortages, but it's actually true. There is a risk that if you wait a week or two we might have sold out. So get your Dilbert calendar while they still exist.

All right. I like to start my show talking about science. So apparently there's a new study in the UK that says that polar bears are undergoing rapid genetic change to adjust to climate change because climate change would wipe them out except that they may have rapidly changed their own genetic nature to adapt.

Now, why do you think there would be research about the genetic structure of polar bears and then blaming that on climate change? Could it be because everything else they blamed on climate change turned out to be BS? The coral reefs are recovering. The ice seems to be recovering. There doesn't seem to be any important change in sea level. And we had no major storms reach landfall in the United States this year. So pretty much all the stuff that the climate people tried to scare us about turned out not to be true.

So they're running out of stuff. So if you still want to be a climate change person — or this was reported by ABC News — if you want to still keep with the climate crisis, you're going to need some new stuff. So I think the new stuff is, wait, look what's happening to the polar bears. Oh, surprise. They survived by self-evolving their genetics rapidly.

Now, one of the things this makes me wonder if you were a scientist, and I'm certainly not, do scientists believe that, well, do scientists think that the worst other scientists are climate change scientists? If you were a physicist, would you say to yourself, "Ooh, those climate scientists are the smart ones." Or would you say that the people who can't be good scientists become climate scientists? Like if you're actually a scientist, would you think that climate scientists are as serious and talented as other scientists? Or would you say that they're the laughingstock of scientists?

I don't know the answer to that question, but when I see stuff like this, I think, hm, I don't think that was the most serious science that was happening.

All right, here's some more science from Eric Dolan. He's writing about this in PsyPost. The headline says some men may downplay climate change risks to avoid appearing feminine.

Do you think that there apparently there's a big difference in opinion between men and women on the risks of climate change? Men are less likely to think it's an existential risk and women are far more likely. Do you think the reason for that is that the men want — according to the study — that the men are trying to avoid looking feminine? So they think it's just sort of tougher to not be afraid of climate science.

Well, that might be what's going on, but that's an interpretation. Is it also possible that this was written by women or men who were married to women? Because it's a little bit biased.

The other possibility is that men are better at evaluating physical risk and seeing through the BS. So, are men trying to be less feminine or are they just better at evaluating risk? Well, I think you could put this in either frame, but it does suggest that whoever wrote the opinion that the real problem here is men trying to appear less feminine — that looks like it was written by a woman or a man who was married to a woman and wanted to stay that way. Just guessing, speculating.

So, Palmer Luckey, the billionaire head of Anduril, he seems to be doing a lot of public podcasting and interviews and stuff lately, and I always enjoy reading his opinions, but he seems to be part of what I'm seeing as a growing billionaire trend. And when I say billionaire trend, I mean the billionaires I seem to like the most. That the billionaires need to use their power and their money to make the world a better place. Now, not being forced to do it, not being forced by the government to do it or taxed or something, but simply because they're the best at allocating capital.

So if you had a billion dollars floating around and you said, "What are we going to do with it?" Would you rather give the billion dollars to, oh, let's say Tim Walz in Minnesota or Gavin Newsom in California or somebody like Elon Musk who definitely knows how to deploy capital?

So I saw Chamath from the All-In Pod saying that the billionaires need to do a better job of providing obvious benefits to the public the way the old billionaires used to do at the turn of the century, the other turn of the century. And that's probably good advice because I think if they're doing things like creating public libraries, you know, the old billionaire stuff, or i