First, thanks so much for having me. I really appreciate the opportunity to talk to you here for a little bit this afternoon in Durban. As far as people who are skeptical, and I much prefer that to belief, because really we're not talking about belief, like belief in God, we're talking about, do the data convince people of a scientific hypothesis of man-made climate change? And so I look at this as really about the data. A long time ago, I used to be a navigator on a US Navy destroyer. This is way back in the days back before global positioning systems. So many of us may not have even been born back then. But back then, you had to really look at all of the data. Otherwise, you tended to run aground. So you looked at the stars, you looked at what your radar was telling you, you looked at what the ocean was telling you. And you put all of that together, and it kind of told you where you were and where you were going. And I kind of look at climate change as far as the observations like that. We can all take a specific data set, and we can put it under a microscope, and reasonable people can differ in the specific interpretations, especially over very short time periods. But when you take a look at the global air temperatures, the global water temperatures, the heat in the deep ocean, the retreat of glaciers, the thinning of ice in the Arctic, the ice sheets coming off of Greenland and West Antarctica, and also the ecosystems, how the animals and the plants. Now, last I checked, plants don't vote. They just try to survive. So all of that together, I think, is a lot of independent data that says, hey, the climate's changing. So for the Department of Defense, if the geography is changing, I need to take a look at that. And that's really what we look at. We look at the data. And why is this a security issue for you guys? Why is it something you worried about specifically? Well, there's a couple components on the security, and we could start really at what we sometimes call the 100,000 foot level, really high up, and really national security, I think, is tied to human security. Human security is tied to meeting very basic needs of people. Like, do you have enough fresh water? Do you have enough food? We know there are already places today that many people are sorely lacking, but if that number goes up significantly, and especially if people who had those basic necessities no longer have them, a safe place to live, food, water, that can be an increase in the potential, potential for instability, and just like the Arab Spring, nobody knew in advance that one person who set himself a fire, look at all the chains, look at all the changes that that created. Nobody a year ago would have predicted that the NATO nations, the Western nations would have been involved in a military campaign in Libya, but it happened, and it happened because of one guy, but that one guy fed into those very, very unstable conditions. We look at the climate change if not handled correctly, and if it happens faster than people can adapt to it, as again, a precondition or a precursor for just any one specific event, be it like the floods we saw in Bangkok, or something even non-climate related to set off a very, very unpredictable chain. So that's the really high level. Near term level, we see the Arctic Ocean changing. The Arctic is being frozen since we can all remember, permanently, but we think in the next few decades that will start to open up, and by the middle of the century it will be open long enough that major shipping lines are going to start making big, big changes to the global shipping picture. That takes a straight, like the Bearing Strait, which right now nobody really thinks about because it's really not used, and it makes it sort of like the Strait of Malacca with two-way trade, and at the same time the Strait of Four Moose with potentially large oil and gas resources flowing south back to America and to Asia. So that's a big, big change for the United States Navy. It changes the sea lines of communication. It changes those maritime crossroads, and as we operate forward, that's a huge issue for us. So I'll leave it at that. Sea level rises another huge issue, but let's continue with maybe some other topics. And what would you say to those people who say we need certainty before acting on this? This is a huge transition we ought to wait until we're certain. Speaking for the US Navy and for the Department of Defense, we never, we never have, wait for absolute certainty on anything. Because if you wait for absolute certainty, you're probably dead in a defense stage. You know, if you're looking for somebody to say, okay, is he shooting at me and is it really hostile? And do I really have to be killed before I do anything? You know, we don't, we don't work that way. So like in our rules of engagement, we look for things like hostile intent. And then intent gets, you know, very, very specifically formed. And many people work very hard to determine what intent is. But we're not waiting for hostile action. We wait for hostile intent. So that says that we wait for that. Longer term plans, you never know how demographics are going to be exactly. You never know how political situations are going to be exactly, but you have to plan. You plan for a range of futures. Because it's frankly, it's a fool's errand to believe that you can know exactly what the future is going to occur. Now we support the science and technology. We want to narrow the range of plausible options to the degree that we can. But it would frankly be irresponsible for us to wait for absolute certainty to plan for the future. And the Department of Defense has made great strides in terms of its own efforts to reduce emissions. Why do you think it is that you're leading in this field versus kind of governments who tend to be much slower to take action? Well, thank you for that observation. And I think whatever progress we have made, our culture tends to be one that's driven by data, driven by observations, and really very practical and pragmatic. The causes of climate change, frankly, are of secondary interest to the Department of Defense. But what we know, when we look at all those observations I mentioned earlier, is that climate is changing. And that means the geography or the battle space in military terms in which we will operate is changing. Our job is to be ready for when the President of the United States asks us to do a mission. And if we have not accounted for that change in geography, we will not be ready. So, in one word, it's all about readiness. And we don't really care about the politics. We'll let the politicians work the politics. We just care about making sure that we're ready. Thank you so much for joining us. It's been great to speak to you. Thank you very much.