There is a scientific consensus. We need to be clear as to what that means. I mean peer-reviewed journals, the vast majority of all peer-reviewed science comes down that conclusively that Bernie Falselfield is driving climate change in a serious process. These are papers that are submitted without names on them that are read by experts in journals that are monitored for professional standards by professional associations. And all of these journals and all of these professional associations, one after the other, have concurred about the reality of this science. So there's no debate within science and among scientists. There is a debate in the editorial pages and that's the result of Falselfield money paying for messaging, hiring intellectuals to spread disinformation. One Pew poll found that in 2007 concern among Americans about climate change and viewing it as driven by humans was at 77%, I think it was in 2007. You know that dropped to 57%, or 56%, you know a year or two ago. So that's the direct result of this investment in messaging. And I think it's important as progressives to acknowledge this that there's a debate and then make it clear to people what the nature of the two areas is, that science, there is no debate and that there's no responsibility, there's no vetting, there's no accountability or responsibility to the truth in editorial pages of newspapers. And so that's where the debate is, yes there's a debate and there will always be a debate as long as somebody has enough money to hire some shill to, you know, write whatever they want. And so that's the story with the junk science versus real science. There isn't even really that much junk science, it's just sort of like manipulative, propagandistic messaging, being funded by Exxonmole, will look hope brothers, you know, through right wing think tanks that have open doors to the editorial pages and get on NPR, you know, I mean American Enterprise Institute heritage, the Hudson Institute, I mean these, these are the places from which come the pundits and experts who spread disinformation in the press. None of those people write scientific papers.