Support the show (https://bit.ly/39tV7JY)
I hope you guys have enjoyed the last couple of episodes where I did the interviews. I really enjoy doing those, but for now let's get through a more standard format where I'm going to run through some stories and cover an important topic and certainly offer plenty of opinions in the process as well. In fact now that it's been a few days, I'd like to get back to the Texas electrical energy situation. As you guys are aware, my power was off a little over three days all of a sudden done, and it certainly was not a fun experience, but I knew that the weather would eventually warm up. I knew the problems that we were experiencing were directly associated to the cold weather. And so it was really just a matter of time and getting through the immediate discomfort of having below freezing temperatures and being in a house with no electricity. Luckily we did have natural gas during that time, and I was able to utilize natural gas and cooking on the stove, boiling water, those types of things in order to get through the experience. And of course now, as I record this today, it is 83 degrees Fahrenheit outside, which is pretty much the exact opposite. It's a point where the air conditioning has to be running. Otherwise it's getting too hot in the house to really handle. And this is still February in Texas. So you can see that we literally went from eight degrees, I believe was our lowest eight degrees Fahrenheit. And up to 83 degrees Fahrenheit, less than seven days later. So a very wide range in temperatures this year in Texas. And I suspect this is going to become more of a common thing in the future as well. And I'll talk more about why I think that in a future episode, that kind of ties into my whole analysis of climate change. That's currently happening that I'm working on. But that won't be out for probably at least another month or so. I've got a lot of work yet to put together that episode. So let's get back to the electrical situation here. Now that's data is becoming available, not just for the directly Coming out of ERCOT, but also coming from the organizations that ERCOT has to report their data to certainly plenty of publications and statements coming out from a variety of sources including the generators that are the companies, I should say. That are generating data or data. I'm going to leave this in companies that are generating electricity in Texas data is coming in from them now as well. So what is apparent from all this data? What can I really, what conclusions can I draw based on seeing the data I will say the conclusions are actually very similar to what I was able to ascertain during the power outage. Simply looking on my phone, looking at various charts, graphs, and analysis that were happening at the time of the event. But now of course there's a wider variety of data and it can certainly be confirmed better as well. And it's been validated. Contrary to what most of the newspapers and certainly contrary to what you see on old school legacy television, which I certainly don't watch, but I've seen examples of clips where they're making fun of people in Texas that are blaming the windmills for what happened. I'm going to start off with the counter-argument. So I'm going to start off by saying how I think they got to. The decision that they did in that this really wasn't the windmill. So, I'll start there and then I'll work my way back and disprove though, that that assumption, I think the reason that a lot of these publications are saying it really wasn't a windmills, Texas. It was the rest of your infrastructure, which is shitty. And certainly the people involved in providing generation and transportation of electricity, not the windmills themselves. And I think the reason they're saying that is because there were still some windmills, operational whether the energy was coming from the windmills themselves or coming from lithium batteries that are attached to those windmills to provide a buffer for when the windmills themselves are not generating electricity. So certainly the generation from windmills was not at zero. The other factor that is, I think, generating the assertion that Hey, windmills were still working just fine, is that they are comparing the windmill power generated based on a very slim slice of time. Essentially the 12 hour period, just prior to the ice storm cold front, moving in. And then comparing that to the generation of power for the next three days where Texas was mostly below freezing. And if you compare those two, it appears that windmill power. I know I'm saying windmill, just like a lot of other people, even though that there are no mills attached to these these are generators that are being driven, not mills, we're not milling flour. So during this ice storm period we're producing roughly I'd say between half and two thirds of the power that they produced in the immediate 12 hour period before the dip in temperatures. And this is very crucial because using that metric, taking a snapshot just half a day prior to the power outage, it does appear if you compare the degeneration production, that there was a much smaller dip in electrical production than what actually happened. So, right now, if I'm looking at the graph at that immediate 12 hour period, it looks like windmills were responsible for somewhere about seven to 8,000 megawatts or yeah, seven to 8,000 megawatts or seven to eight gigawatts. And. During the cold spell, the windmills peaked at their peak production were producing between three and four gigawatts. So three, 4,000 megawatts. So the drop-in windmills was. Roughly half potentially even less than half. If they use the, like the last six hours prior to the storm, then the windmills really were only producing about 4,000 gigawatts combined. And they certainly. Reach that same peak of about 4,000 gigawatts during the the windiest portions of the freeze as well. So you could argue if you're very careful about your timeline that you use to say that look they were producing 4,000 before the storm. They peaked at 4,000 during the storm. What are you guys talking about? There was no reduction in power. Well, that is a complete manipulation of the facts to suit your current argument. And by manipulating the facts, you could technically be correct in what you say, even though you're completely disingenuous and you're, completely wrong. If you use a different scale, a scale that is much more useful to look at. So the freezing, the temperatures in Texas didn't happen until Friday, February 15th. But there was certainly a cooling of temperatures in Texas that took place for the entirety of the previous week. So really between February 8th and February 15th, Texas cooled off tremendously. The week prior to the cooldown, temperatures went down from about 70 degrees Fahrenheit down to the mid forties Fahrenheit. So at least a 30 degree change in temperature. The cloudiness also increased. There was more more rain. And then if it's not rain per se, there were certainly plenty of clouds blocking sunshine, and that affected both solar and wind turbines as well. So what. Could the wind turbines produce prior to the cold temperatures. And now that Texas has warmed up, like I said, it's in the eighties today. What are the turbines producing right now? Well, let's look at those questions now. Remember at peak the turbines during the frost, we're doing 4,000 gigawatt or four. Yeah, 4,000 megawatt, four gigawatt. And that's the peak, the average was significantly lower. It was closer to about a two gigawatt. Okay. On February 8th, windmill power accounted for 2020 4,000 thousand gigawatt a megawatt. So 24 gigawatt. I need to just pick one and stick to it instead of repeating both of them. Sorry guys. So, other cities megawatt 24,000 megawatt. So that is a nice warm day. With a lot of sunshine and plenty of wind happening. So at that point, there's 24,000 megawatt of electricity being generated by wind turbines. Now that's the realistic capability. The theoretical capability is significantly higher. I think it's closer to 35,000. Megawatts of power, but let's just say it's the 24,000 that was actually observed on February 8th and the days prior to that. Now right now, the weather is warmer. I think the wind's a little bit lighter. So for example, yesterday the generation power of the windmills was it looks like it was about 13,000. Megawatt, is that right? So 40, 30, 20, and no more than that. So, so about 17,000 megawatt. So 17,000 yesterday, 24,000 prior to the storm, these are real numbers coming from the electricity grid and the actual produced amounts. So if you look at a potential of 24,000 megawatts produced and the same wind generators are producing a peak. 4,000 during the ice storm with an average of about 2000, what you're really getting is they were producing at best 20% of the same amount of power that they were producing one week earlier, which means a reduction by 80%. And these are using peak values, not average values. If we use average values, it was actually a reduction of 94%. Compared to the previous week. Again, this is not using theoreticals. These are using measured production values coming from EIA, which is the us energy information administration. This is where the government gets their figures from. I'm getting them from the exact same place. So at best 80% reduction at worst 94% reduction, I think Ted Cruz said that was a 98% reduction, but he's a politician he's pushing the bounds even the further. So let's just take the best case scenario. 80% reduction, 80%, less power being generated than the previous week. And what was the biggest difference between the week of the of the power outage and the week before that? Well, it was the temperature. It was weather conditions. What's the difference between that week and today? Same thing. It is in the eighties today was in the seventies yesterday and it's nice and sunny. And the generation of power from wind turbines is significantly bigger. So. What do you have to invent to be able to say that the wind turbines, which decreased at least 80% in their output were not responsible for the outages that we saw in Texas? Well, other types of power generation are being blamed. Let's look at those really fast. So let's start off with nuclear power. Texas has two nuclear plants. And those two nuclear plants are putting out I think about four and a half thousand megawatt of power. They're very consistent, very solid. 24 hours a day, same exact same thing happening. What was the power output of nuclear at the beginning of the of the cold weather conditions? Four and a half thousand. What was the output of that during the first day of the cold weather condition? Four and a half thousand. What was the output on the second day? Ooh, looks like that dipped. And it went to 3,200. Why is that? Well, we now know that there was a. A triggered safety event that went one of the power plants, one of the nuclear plants that happened due to erroneous conditions. So there was nothing actually wrong. There was nothing. That was a dangerous in nuclear plant. But there was a trigger that ended up creating a safety warning, which precluded the plant from running at full capacity. And as that investigation took place the nuclear plant was running at about three quarter capacity and. As soon as that was investigated and established to be a faulty warning that triggered it on February 18th, the capacity went right back up to the standard four and a half thousand or so. Megawatt. So there was a very slight dip in nuclear. So technically you could say, Hey, nuclear also had a problem. It did it may or may not have been related to the weather, but certainly the total output did drop by about 20%, but that's a drop of 20%. The wind power was a drop of 80%. Now let's look at coal power prior to the the cold weather event it was running at the bouts, looks like so, a little over 10,000. Megawatt and it does go up and down a little bit. I think there's a very ability to coal power where it's not putting out quite as sustained and output as the the nuclear power generation is. And so if we look at it I'm just going to say it's going to be roughly at, I think it's technically over 10, but let's say it's 10,000. This chart gradation, I can't quite tell if it's over. Well, I know it's over 10, but I can't tell if it's 12 or 11, so let's just call it 10. So that went from 10,000 output down to about 6,000 output during the cold weather. And there was a number of reasons for that. And so it was probably about a It was between a 30 and a 35% drop in output. That lasted for the most part the entirety of the power outage. So coal plants were definitely operating at a lower up, but then prior to the freezing weather there was a a number of plants that had. Got offline in their conditions. There was at least one plant that I'm aware of that was running out of coal supplies because the coal train that delivers coal to it could not get there. So certainly coal plants did go off, but it appears that the plants that were not online, the ones that ended up going offline were essentially human error. These are things that could certainly have been prevented. Had people actually anticipated the cold weather a little bit better and I would even go so far as to bet there are procedures already documented and in place that exists, but which were not followed. So coal plans did have some issues, but they were predominantly human error related. Okay. Well, let's look at. Natural gas, power plants. These are, this is the single biggest source of power in Texas. The gas, natural gas power plants have an advantage in that they can be spooled up and turned off very quickly so they can be used to augment other power sources and make up for the difference. Now these plants typically are running at or well, whether it's half the plants running or whether the plants are running at half power I have not dug into the specifics of exactly what's going on. My guess is. A lot of these plants are simply shut down and are in standby condition until they're needed. And then they're turned on and spooled up. And so these plants were like during warm weather. So let's say February 8th at the same time, as we had really high output in power coming from from the wind generators. So I remember when generator was providing 24,000 megawatt. At that time, there was only a need for about 6,000 megawatt coming from guests, natural gas. So a very small percentage as the weather cooled off, but still prior to the freeze for the following week. There were more plants getting turned on and the output from natural gas actually went all the way up to let me calculate this real quick. So, minus 15, so 43,000 megawatt. So natural gas went from what I say about 5,006,000 megawatts up to. 44,000 megawatt. So more than double of what the wind turbine we're producing on its best days. And this is as anticipated, right? This is essentially why there are so many natural gas plants in place is because of the flexibility that they offer. Natural gas is a more expensive way to generate electricity than coal fire plants, because the natural gas plants themselves are smaller and there's less efficiency involved and coal is certainly cheaper. But all of a sudden done natural gas is what kept Texas warm during the week right up to the big freeze. So during the last day, the week before the freeze, so this would be. February 14th because the temperatures dip below freezing on the 15th. So on February the 14th, here's the breakdown. So about 5,000 coming from nuclear about 12,000 or so coming from coal 42,000 coming from natural gas and about 4,000 coming from. Well, let's be generous. Let's say 6,000 coming from wind turbines. So I'm going to give it the peak value, not the average value here. So 6,000 from from the wind turbines, 44,000 from natural gas, you can see how much more electricity was being generated by natural gas. To begin with. And this is the little trick that is being used by the the has been media the traditional media to justify saying, well, it was natural gas that went down there. Wasn't the the wind power that went down because that's what they're using. They're using where the wind power was during a cold, but non freezing week already. And then comparing that to where wind power was during the freezing weather. And that's where you get the much smaller difference between the two. But remember just the week prior to that wind power is generating 24,000 megawatt. So it had already gone from 24,000 to 6,000. By the time the weather was in the 40 degree range. So before the freezing ever hit. The reduction in capabilities of wind power was already showing its face. So how much did the did the natural gas power go down during the week of frozen weather? Well, it was not insignificant. So remember it went from 44,000 at the peak. And from that during the three days of frozen weather natural gas generation, Was at about 30,000. So it dropped about 14,000 megawatts that were generated. So that by raw numbers, that was Singh. Absolutely the biggest single dip of any type of natural any type of energy source. So a reduction in 14,000. Megawatt coming from natural gas, a reduction of about three and a half thousand to 4,000 megawatt in coal, a reduction of two, two and a half thousand megawatts. In that it wasn't even two and a half. It was really one and a half to 2000 megawatts coming from nuclear. So the single biggest change in electrical production was absolutely natural gas, but the reason that was the single biggest change. Was because natural gas already had to be ramped up the previous week to account for the absolute huge drop in production of green energy. Coming from the windmills from the when generators dammit, I keep saying windmills. So it is technically true, but absolutely a falsehood to say that the. Blackouts that were seen in Texas, that I was a part of for three days where the result of the failure of natural gas. Yes. Natural gas had many issues. Yes. There were problems in transmission of power. There were problems with not there weren't any problems with gas line transmissions. And that is evidenced by the fact that I never lost natural gas. Most people that I spoke with that are part of the energy production system here will also say, well, we never really lost natural gas. What happened was natural gas. The only technical issues with it that were happening were at the connect points. So there is natural gas available. It is coming to the generators that use natural gas. But some of the equipment that those generators, while they were turned off may have frozen and prevented them from restarting, even though natural gas was available. So those were some issues that certainly did happen. The other issue that happened was natural gas. It's prioritized for heating, just like electricity is prioritized for emergency services. So evenly. If your entire block is turned off the hospital, that's a few blocks away from you still has power because it's prioritized over a single family homes. The same thing with natural gas. There's a prioritization of providing natural gas for heating over providing natural gas for electricity generation. Now I'm very happy about that because if I had neither electricity nor natural gas, this would have been a much harder and much more damaging experience that I went through. So natural gas plants certainly experienced some issues, but even through the coldest weather, even through the freezing weather, Natural gas accounted for over half the electricity produced during that week. And even though there, there were, I think, close to 5 million electrical connections that were offline. And I want to make sure I stress that because the, again, legacy media. The has-beens have been completely mistakenly reboarding this as four and a half million Texans without power 5 million Texans without power. No, these are not individual numbers. Nobody reports the humans that are associated with the power outages. The only number that is being reported are the number of meters that are not spinning. So this is how many meters are not. Flowing how many meters there's no electricity flowing through them. So the average household is going to be 2.2 people. And frankly, it's probably more in cities like Austin, where there's a lot of high student population and he will have one meter for three to four people that are all living in the same apartment. So really it was more like 10 million people in Texas were affected. By the four and a half thousand meters that were off. And it's a pet peeve because ultimately I don't think anyone really cares other than me, but it is absolutely wrong to say that you have one person per meter because you don't. That is absolutely not the case. And the meters were the only things that there were numbers from. And we know that there were about four and a half thousand meters. That were inoperable during those points in time, but that's not to say that the entire state of Texas was turned off. Roughly half day electricity capabilities were still online and providing electricity. It was just based on whoever had the highest number of emergency services that were in the area they were in. I had three friends out of the three friends. Two of them still had power. One didn't and by, I mean, friends here in the, within like a three mile area of where I am. So two of us didn't two others did. And that's pretty pretty similar stat to what you see across the entire map of Texas, to where roughly half the people, half the households had power the entire time and half of us. And I was on the unfortunate side, did not have power the entire rest of the time. There was very little switching going on, unfortunately. So, just to wrap up this topic of power outages natural gas had a few failures, but they did a great job. They were down at most about 27% compared to their capabilities in the, where they were earlier in the week. The wind turbines were complete horse shit. They were down by a very generous 80% lower than they have been the previous week during warm weather. And potentially, if you really look at the averages because you don't get wind consistently 24 hours a day, wind power was really down at about 95%. So operating at about 5% of average capacity. Nuclear just, I think randomly had a blip that normally would not have happened potentially tied to the cold weather, but we don't know yet at this point exactly what the trigger was, but for the most part provided very solid, consistent electrical generation coal plants. There was some issues with coal plants. Like I mentioned, some relating to a delivery of coal others relating to. Well, mechanical issues. These are large coal plants. They're not run consistently all the time. They will still have issues. If the weather changes, they were not planned on being slowed down the way they were. But they were operating pretty good right up until the freeze. But the dip that happened during the freeze was really less than 25%. It was closer to about 20% reduction. In coal power, electrical generation. So the big loser in all of this is absolutely wind power. Now, one little note, I will say something I haven't been talking about, which is solar and solar provides such a minuscule amount of generation in Texas. You would think Texas in the South. So why isn't there a lot more solar generation happening? Well, the reality is solar is really expensive and people that have paid for solar roofs have realized that if you don't have the subsidies coming in, it's really expensive and you won't get your money back until 15, 20 years of generating energy from that solar roof. And it's really no different for large solar plants that are commercial as well. So while solar power is a great. Source of generating electricity, like an on an RV or when you're going camping, it's essentially free power. That is just being generated all the time on top of your vehicle. But when the larger those cell sites grow and the more of a need for power you have from solar, the more the costs and the limitations that you are, it's only generated for half a day. And so you need a very expensive energy storage and lithium batteries are even more expensive than. The solar panels themselves. So really it's not, cost-effective at least right now, maybe 50 years down the road, there'll be enough advances to where it becomes cost effective right now. It's not. So what happens to solar during all of this? Well, solar was responsible for about two and a half. Let me see where the biggest peak would be. Maybe three, maybe all the way up to 3000 mega yeah, 3000 megawatts. And like, I think I'm being generous there. It's probably closer to two and a half thousand megawatts on a nice sunny day prior to the cold weather. So what happened to solar during that week? Well, the week. Immediately before the freeze. So it was cooled down to the forties. Remember I mentioned it was also cloudy. Cloudy means not a whole lot of wind and cloudy means not a whole lot of sunlight. So at that point, solar was barely producing 1000 a megawatt of power. So what can you do? You got clouds. You're not generating. A whole lot with with solar power, but during the actual three days of Sub-Zero temperatures of subfreezing temperatures, I should say it wasn't particularly clear. And so we actually got a little bit more solar and then up peaking at about about 1500 a megawatt or so, so probably about a. 35 to 40% reduction from its optimal capacity. So solar actually did much better than wind turbines as a percentage of its potential power generation and what it actually saw but it represents such a tiny fraction of total power that. It's almost, there's almost no point in talking about it. And that's why I kind of just only mentioned it at the end, after summarizing everything else. Because solar did better than wind power. But there's so little solar, they really didn't make a huge impact. And now that we're back now that everything's sort of warm weather and everything's running normal and this'll be the last number of figures I give you guys is swear. I'm sure I've lost plenty of people with all the numbers and figures I'm spinning out here. But the last numbers I have, which would be from I guess, yesterday. Where that nuclear is back to its normal producing roughly five, 5,000 megawatts. Coal is running at about 8,000 megawatts because there's just not much need for it. I think they've shut down the plants that need maintenance and they certainly have plenty of overhead to be able to do with meanwhile, the natural gas plants. Are down to what are they down to about 12,000 megawatts. So still the single biggest producer of electricity yesterday in Texas was natural gas, but that is significantly reduced the peaks and what, and solar is, you know, 1500 give or take so pretty much insignificant. And so what is wind power and wind power is. Right now at just shy of 15,000. So about 14,000 megawatts. So between wind power and natural gas power, they're there almost, even in terms of the amount of power they're currently producing in Texas. So this is a more typical situation that we would have. Other than the two weeks of cold weather that we had, one of which actually dip below freezing. And so I'm not trying to completely say that, Oh, all wind power is horrible. Wind power is fine when it works and it works in warm sunny days. So if you know that there will occasionally be days which are not sunny and therefore not very windy. And they is, which are cold, which seems to also greatly affect the capabilities of the power generation. Then you, as a state, Texas, need to plan on having enough other means of power generation available to offset the known drop in availability, coming from wind turbines. And that is essentially my thesis that. This was mostly human error. These are events that could absolutely have been predicted. The outputs of all of these systems could absolutely have been predicted based on past years and best past days of cold weather. There was nothing unusual about this year with one exception. The cold weather lasted for almost two weeks instead of two or three days, which normally happens. And during that two week cold weather period, three of those days were below freezing. So it is a more extreme version of cold weather, but even in less extreme versions of cold weather, the Texas has experienced. You can see. A very large drop in the capabilities of wind power and having that ability to predict the drop in wind power. It should have been absolutely predictable that there is not sufficient alternative power methods, which are mostly going to be natural gas, but also coal. And as I've mentioned, I think on my, in the dark podcast Texas right now is. Down to I guess, right around 12,000 megawatt of potential coal power, maybe 13,000 megawatt. Just six years ago, Texas was at 37,000 megawatts. So that. That's a over 50% of Texas capabilities to produce electricity. Using coal have been removed in just six years. That is a very substantial difference. And that difference is absolutely would have been enough to make up for the shortfall of wind power. Had Texas not shut down. Roughly half of its coal plants, the way it did in the last six years, there would have been enough power available to offset the dip in the available. It's just the production coming from wind power, and none of the freezing temperatures would have affected. Texas residents, the way that he did with a multi-day blackouts, we may have had no blackouts, or we may have had a very short blackout or two. And I remember 10 years ago when the last cold front with subfreezing temperatures went through Texas. And I was living in Dallas at that time. There was a 20 minute blackout that happened. And there's just that one. That was it. And I remember complaining about that and talking about how this is ridiculous. I can't believe they weren't managing their electricity better, given that they knew this cold front was coming in. So things have gotten way worse in Texas, Texas has gotten rid of over half their coal power plants. And increase the reliance on wind power. And unfortunately, what we absolutely know, it is a fact that wind turbines lose capacity at a huge rate when the weather gets cold and especially when it gets down to subfreezing temperatures. So if Texas doesn't want to have this happen again and there will be lawsuits to make sure they don't, it has to have alternative means now. I don't want to go much longer on this episode. It's already getting long, but the best alternative means of power. The one that is completely unaffected by weather conditions of course, is nuclear power. And it having two nuclear plants, each one with two operational reactors right now, if Texas simply double that, and we had four nuclear plants and we have eight operational reactors running, then the baseline of power produced. Could be enough to offset all the cold plants that were shut down during the the last six years, as I mentioned. And it's probably more like seven years, but anyway, in a fairly short period of time, Texas has lost a lot of production of power coming from a coal. And if we were increasing both nuclear and wind power to offset that. Meet somewhere in the middle. I think that would have been great. And of course, nuclear is the greenest power that you can produce. It generates extremely little waste. And if we use modern nuclear power, production capabilities, not the sort of gigantic old school GE or Westinghouse nuclear generators if we're doing the same thing that a lot of countries are doing right now with a molten salt reactor, Then we can have cheaper and safer nuclear power options in Texas and be able to go on a a much more green and environmentally friendly type of electrical generation, which is not burning coal and not burning natural gas anywhere near as much as they are right now, but still providing a very good base load of power. So. Anyway one more item that I want to cover and it, cause I'm not going to get to any new stories today. I guess the new stories will have to be on the next podcast, but I did have one more item I wanted to bring up and it was something that I'd been working on a book for awhile, but also something that kind of got. Brought up on no agenda social. And that was a graphic that somebody made that had the, sort of the flow coming from the scientific method which has not been around for over a hundred years and comparing that to the flow and by flow. I mean, like it's a, you know, a charter graph showing different steps that you execute for what I would describe as scientific worship. Rather than scientific method and I'm not going to go through all the steps in the scientific method. I will include images of the graphs in the podcast. So if you're running a podcasting 2.0 app, you'll actually be able to see the the logo of the podcast changed from my smiling face to the images that I'm referencing. I also have some links to these images, but So in case you're you have an older app, then you won't see the icon change, but I do want to run through really quick in the scientific worship method. And because it's only at five steps and the five steps are this step one, don't ask questions. Step two, construct model with preconceived ideas. Step three. Find data supporting the model, step four, ignore any data that is not supporting the model and step five, which we've heard plenty of times before claim the science is in. And that is your conclusion. So that is a far cry from the real scientific method, but that is a sort of a halfway joking, but unfortunately halfway serious. Description of the scientific worship method that we're seeing and have been seeing for years now is documented a no agenda. By that, that is the most popular thing that we see in the media. The claim of the science is in, is a great trigger to tell you that there is no signs involved there whatsoever because science is a process. Science is something that can be falsified. Science is something that requires you to constantly test and modify your beliefs at all times. There is no such thing as scientific dogma. And when that happens, when people say the science is in, they're talking about religion, not science, they've simply created a religion, which they're referring to as science. But ultimately has all the traits of any other religion. And if I want it to be a little more mean, I would say cult, not just the religion, because much like cults do. These scientific worshipers. They act in ways to exclude people who don't agree with them much like Colts and to remove non-believers and shun them and to maximize pain for people that don't agree with them by oil and removing people from platforms like Twitter, simply for raising questions. So with that, I think I'll wrap up. Hopefully you guys enjoyed this. This is not a special, this is getting back to our normal scheduled programming, but I promise I will cover more actual new stories in the next podcast. Take care.