people are so confused. It's not the people are confused. People just simply cannot separate it out. Because you are giving so many facts and so many conflicting facts, so ultimately you remember the myth. Then most likely I'll die. Although the probability of your dying is extremely low, even if you get it. On the other hand, if you can give myth with some carefully constructed facts, you do remember the fact. So the argument that I will make here is that our challenge is to essentially, when I'm trying to debunking some of this myth or some of the social facts, to create scientific facts, those are easily digestible to the audience that I'm giving it to. That's very, very powerful because otherwise I can keep talking about this climate change. A general public does not understand what I'm talking about. As a result, they think it's a hoax. So what does that mean really is this. When you're trying to replace a myth from somebody's mind, you need to replace it by some facts. Otherwise, it will get replaced by another myth. So the question is basically, and the politicians are extremely powerful really basically replacing myths and myths are not really easily discounted. I don't believe that myth can be easily taken out. They will be there. The challenge is to create myth, those are little bit more scientifically valid. If you can do this, then I think you have an alternative narrative. Otherwise