working on for a long time. The other day I had a very bad mental attitude. I woke up just feeling a sense of dread and doom that wasn't really connected to anything happening in the world that was different than the day before when I felt fine. You know, surely there are problems in the world but why did I feel fine yesterday and then I wake up one day and then I feel like dread and doom? Do you know what the answer is? It's how my body felt. When my body feels suboptimal, my brain follows along.

If you're still under the model that your brain and your body are two different functions, you're going to be, your odds of happiness are practically zero. Let me say that again. If you think that your brain and your, well, let's put it this way. If you think that your body is not a component of your mind and that it's only that little brain thing that's inside your skull that's part of your mind, oh, you're not going to succeed at anything. You have to get rid of that. Your body is your brain.

Here's what I mean. How did I solve the problem that I felt a sense of doom and dread and, you know, I would have even called it like a mild depression? It was because my body didn't feel good. I didn't have enough exercise. I had some inflammation maybe. So I basically take a, you know, an Epsom salt hot bath and my inflammation goes away and I eat some food I like and I get some sleep and all the doom went away. So my brain problem was just my body. So as soon as you realize that your brain is your body and that imagining they're two separate systems gets you all the wrong answers, your body is your brain. I'm depressed. What am I going to do about it? Do some brain stuff? No. Do something with your body. Get outside, get some sun, get some vitamin D, work on your inflammation if you have a problem. So that's my hypothesis based on my observation in my own life is that whenever my body hurts, my brain is in a bad place. Whenever my body feels extraordinary, my brain's fine. No problems at all.

Anyway, it's a good thing that climate models are dependable. Oh well, there's a new story that two prominent and very experienced climate scientists, you've probably heard of them before, they're sort of the contrarians in that space. Richard Lindzen, I've talked about him before, and William Happer. Now they're both very highly qualified professionals in science, specifically spent a lot of time in the global climate change stuff. Here's what they say. Apparently their claim is the following, that if you add some CO2 to the air it might warm the environment or does actually. So they would agree that if you add CO2, you produce CO2 to the air and there's not much there already, that as you're adding a little bit to the air it'll cause some warming. But here's the surprising part. They claim is that when you reach a certain level, which we have already reached, that the science is very clear that the CO2 will stop having that same warming property. In other words, we've already reached peak CO2 warming potential. Adding more won't make any difference at all.

So their claim is, let's see if I can get it in their words, that the physics of carbon dioxide is that CO2's ability to warm the planet is determined by its ability to absorb heat. So if it doesn't absorb heat it doesn't warm the planet. But its ability to absorb heat, this is the CO2, decreases rapidly as CO2 concentration increases. So it's basically the opposite of all of climate change. That it does correlate with an increase in temperature at lower rates but when you reach about where we are now it should plateau. So they're saying basically it's not going to add any warming because it can't. As soon as you have enough concentration of CO2, which is where we're at, you could add more but it won't get any warmer.

Now do all scientists agree? Of course not. But these are two very qualified, well-known, you know, even I know these names not in the scientific field but I'm well aware of these two scientists. So if they're right then everything about the climate models is wrong. And they've made a fairly simple claim, one that you think could be tested. Now I'm not going to claim that these scientists are right and all the other scientists are wrong. I'm going to claim that we don't know anything about anything. Like all of our sense of certainty is all artificial. It's, you know, we imagine that the data is never going to change and nobody's lying and all the assumptions they made are true and that it's actually possible to predict the future based on a multivariable model. It's not. It's not even close to possible and everybody in the field knows it but you don't.

All right, so but if that were the only problem that would be the end of the climate crisis completely. And it does seem like a testable claim. Could you not test in a laboratory the increasing CO2 in let's say just a laboratory setting, a totally controlled environment? And I think they've done that, right? I'm pretty sure I've seen tests where in the laboratory if you introduce CO2 to a little closed environment you can demonstrate that it causes warming. So if the claim is that a certain saturation level stops doing that instead of infinitely creating more warming, that would be easy to test, wouldn't it? Couldn't you just build a little terrarium or something that looks like Earth in a box or, you know, in a sealed environment, introduce some CO2, measure the temperature. Sure enough we added CO2 and the temperature went up. Now keep adding it until you get to the concentration we're at today in the real world. Does it keep going up as you keep adding to it or does it plateau as these two scientists would suggest?

So the fascinating thing about this is it seems so testable. Maybe we'll find out it's real. Who knows? I'm not going to tell you that these scientists are right and the others are wrong because I have no way to know that. But I love the fact that they're very qualified people and they've got a very different idea of what's going on. But at least the rest of climate model stuff is all pretty solid, you know. It's only that one assumption that they have to test. You know, the one assumption that drives everything. That's the only one they're questioning. The one assumption that makes everything different. But are there any other assumptions in these climate models, huh?

Well it turns out that there have been some new studies of ice and they can melt the ice in a special scientific way and figure out what kind of gases and stuff were in the ice and then they can reconstruct things about the past to know if their climate models today would have worked in the past as well. That's pretty important. So what they find out? Well it turns out that the amount of biomass that has burned over time has been decreasing as the population of the world increases. So biomass burning means like a forest fire, right? Just a natural fire outdoors is a biomass burning. So the climate models assumed that the more people you added to the world, the more burning there would be. I assume they mean because people would burn forest to plant farms, people would burn wood to heat themselves, people, humans wo