e seen already are going to create any kind of calamity. And in fact it might all be positive.

Now you might say to yourself well that's opposite of what I've been hearing. And so I don't say that Rossiter is correct. How would I know? But I want to make a distinction with the different kinds of skeptics. So there's the Tony Heller kind of skeptic who believes that there was intentional bad faith changes to the data to create a false impression that there's a big problem. Now I'm not saying that's true or false. I'm just saying that that's one flavor of skeptic who say the data has been fudged intentionally.

There are other skeptics who say that there's no such thing as CO2 causing warming. That the basic physics is just wrong and that maybe it's something about sunspots. I would say they are not the most credible of the skeptics. Again I don't know if they're right or wrong but they talk about arguments that the climate scientists seem to have debunked pretty thoroughly. But I'm not the judge. I can't tell if the debunking is real or not. Just there's a lot of it.

And then there's what I would call the Judith Curry flavor of skeptic. I'm not sure she calls herself a skeptic so I don't want to label her. And maybe this Dr. Caleb Rossiter who I would say statistically skeptical. Meaning that they're looking at the same data that the climate scientists are but they're saying I think you've over interpreted the data or you haven't done it as rigorously as science would require or it's not as cleanly obvious that your interpretations are obvious just based on the statistics.

And so this particular skeptic said to Congress, and he was of course I guess he's associated with Happer who the president has chosen as his lead scientist and Happer's a skeptic so it shouldn't surprise us that there is one. And apparently AOC did not like talking to somebody who knew a lot more than she did on the topic who didn't agree with her assumptions about what was true.

Now I have no way of evaluating Dr. Caleb Rossiter's opinions but neither do you. And I don't know who does. How in the world are we citizens supposed to look at, you know, the scientist says X and then this statistics person with great resume, nobody says he's incompetent. I mean I haven't read that. I'm sure somebody says that about everybody but it looks like he has the right qualifications and he's looked into it and he's the right person and he's looked into it and says I'm not seeing the danger.

But here's where this statistician, if I can call him that, that may be the wrong description for his job type, but here's where he's interesting. He totally accepts the basic science. The CO2 causes warming and that it's almost certainly already present. So he's starting with an agreement with the most basic part of climate science. Yeah CO2 is here, it's increased, adds to the temperature and we can measure it and it does look like it's part of the answer, maybe, but maybe not all of it.

And then he makes a better argument that it doesn't matter because it's all good. The warming is better than the cooling and all things being equal even if the warming killed a million people it's better than the cold that it replaced because the cold would kill 10 million people. I don't know if that's true. And by the way I made up those numbers. Those are not his numbers but it's the sense of the argument.

All right so we're seeing tremendously positive things happen in the climate world. One is that I think the argument and the debate is getting a little bit more robust. You know when we're down to that statistical level it seems that there's a lot of agreement up to the statistical level and that seems like something we could kind of dig into and maybe come to some kind of a better understanding that way. And then there's the nuclear progress which is there's all kinds of nuclear progress all over the world, nuclear energy progress. And that's all good because that is the solution to climate change.

All right let's see if I... oh I said yesterday that when people were accusing Barr of creating a narrative by coming out first with his summary and then apparently Mueller has some disagreement. And the news again was completely incompetent on this topic. And the news was reporting that maybe the disag