s? I wish I had a pen right next to the note cards. So I get a pen a Sharpie and I put it next to the note cards and that was it. That was my work for the day was taking a Sharpie from the place it was moving across the room and putting it next to the note cards. That's how small a step I'm taking. Next time I'm out there I see the pen and I see the note cards and I think of a task and go uh I'm gonna write down two tasks on one note card and then I'll put one task on each note card and that's it. I wrote down two tasks and I did something else.

All right so you see how small the tasks can be. All right I think that's the answer to the question.

Let's take another caller here. Let's take Ken. Ken's got his hoodie on there in the picture looking dangerous with his beard and his hoodie. Ken are you there? Hey do you have a question for me? Do I believe in climate change? Well I would not put it in those terms of belief. Here's what I would say. What we know is that many scientists believe it's, well what we know is that the basic chemistry is probably true in the sense that there are some elements of climate change which are more credible than others. So the more credible part is that they probably have the physics and the chemistry about right. What is less credible is the economic projections that tell you how much you should care about it. Those seem unlikely to be true.

But and this is the coolest thing about climate change it doesn't matter because what you should be doing is exactly the same whether climate change is real or not. Which is getting aggressive with nuclear, staying aggressive with green technology until we can get that as right as possible. You know some would argue green isn't as green as it should be but everything gets better over time. So I think we should be pushing on every door all the time especially nuclear because even if there's no climate change risk if you're in that camp it doesn't matter. You still need lots of energy and you want clean air and you don't want to be burning coal and you'd rather have clean electricity. So nuclear is the answer no matter what.

So from a risk management perspective you can actually say it doesn't matter because we should be pushing as hard as we can on all of these technologies. And you have the free market is working on I think there at least half a dozen companies probably 25 I just don't know about them that are working on various carbon capture technologies now. Before somebody jumps in and says the plants the carbon you can't take the CO2 out of the air because it's too dilute. Before you say that let me say that I have confidence in humanity that we would unplug the carbon capture machines if we started taking too much. I think we catch it in time.

So the market is basically taking care of the problem. And even if you were to take the worst-case scenario by the UN the official the most official estimates is that they would decrease our GDP by ten percent in 80 years which we wouldn't even notice because by then our GDP would be if things are just normal if we just go into the future in any way that is recognizably similar to anything that's ever happened in the past our economy will be about five times bigger. So we'll lose ten percent off of what it could have been but you won't even notice. So we'll have so many resources we'll have robots that can relocate buildings from the beach. We'll have desalinization that can suck the ocean water out and put it somewhere else. I mean we'll have so much.

But what's that about the threat of climate change for 50 years? Well the government depends who you're talking about there. When you talk about climate change there's no such thing as the government. There's just lots of government entities with different opinions and some of them have been that it's going to be too cold and some that it's too warm. I don't subscribe to the theory that because they've been wrong 50 years in a row which I think is roughly true climate predictions have been wrong 50 years in a row. I don't subscribe to the fact that therefore it's wrong now. Unfortunately that doesn't follow because there are plenty of examples in history where something wasn't true until it was. We went thousands of years of history where people tried to have human flight you know putting wings on themselves and various contraptions and it never worked until it did and then one day it worked. Fusion is likely to be like that. We may go a hundred years without developing a fusion energy reactor but then we probably will. The smart people say that it's down to an engineering solution not even a science solution.

So that's my general answer is that you don't need to solve for whether it's true or false climate change because all of the solutions are identical either way.

Thank you for the question.

All right let's go to Pablo. Pablo are you there? I can. What's your question? This may be a suggestion on your topic when you talk about gun control and I don't I don't disagree with most of what you say I just I like the line of thinking and I kind of wanted to tap on to it or tagged on to the end of it. Now one of the places I disagree is in digging into the actual statistics of how these things are happening because if you really want to solve the I guess get the number down like you usually kind of address it as far as getting the number of deaths down then I think it's important to dive in there and find you know particularly solutions to each kind of problem because say an accidental killing or you know accidentally discharging firearms that's going to have a different solution than you know gang violence in Chicago right? I really like to find intriguing but I like to kind of go in that direction.

Yeah you make a good point. It's not, there is no one change to the law unless they took all your guns which is really impractical. There's no one change to the law that fixes all those completely different problems like you said. That's the problem with a kid getting a hold of a gun versus a criminal versus anything else. So yeah you have to chip away at all of those things. So I think in the case of the children getting a gun well there should be you know gun locks and gun safes and stuff like that. But yeah that's a good point. We should not treat it like it's one solution that could fix everything.

All right thank you.

Thank you.

Let's say Carlos. Carlos are you there? Carlos can you hear me? All right Carlos disappeared. A little shy guest syndrome there. Let's try Matt. Matt Matt Matt I'm good. You have a question for me?

Professor Richard Muller Berkeley he's a physics professor very pro-nuclear. Okay you've heard of him but no very pro-nuclear for a long time. There's a vein solutions for like dis