Confessions of an Environmentalist | 5-Minute Videos 

I am on my last year of my bachelor's degree in renewable energy, and I have come to the same conclusion as this gentleman. I was chasing solar and wind unicorns when I first began on my bachelor. I gradually realized that total reliance on renewables is next to impossible. This man is correct in stating that we should consider both renewable and non-renewable energy when expanding the energy sector. We shouldn't be tunnel visioned on emissions alone. There are many factors to consider, and simple solutions are rare.

“Realistic and practical”. What a concept!

Thank you for breaking out of your box and asking questions. Conservation needs to be taught as well. Buying a car every two years, or upgrading your phone every year, always getting the newest tech only adds to the waste and environmental problems we have today. Keep your car until it dies. Keeping your electronic devices as long as they work is a way everyone can contribute. Great Video! Thank you for sharing,

The real problem is environmentalists are more interested in feeling like they’re doing good than they are in actually doing good

4:46 The more land we need to generate power, *_*the more wildlife habitat we lose.*_* A 1,000MW Nuclear power plant would need approximate 1 sq mile; Solar farms need 75x more land to produce the same energy; wind need 360x more land(!). Jaw dropping.

Well said. I work in the energy sector, and this is a great synopsis of real-life energy challenges. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, "There are no perfect solutions--only trade-offs."

There are 2 inputs into the cost of anything: labor and energy. If renewable energy were cheaper, we would already be using it, and no subsidies would be needed. The very fact that it requires subsidies to get people to use it means that it takes more resources to produce.

The old saying is, "If you're not a liberal in your twenties, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative in your forties, you have no brain." My life has followed the same path as yours, Brian.

Thank you, Brian for coming out in public like this. It takes genuine courage to admit you were mistaken, and to risk the wrath of your former colleagues, who still cannot accept they have been conned.

Yes! It is much more complicated than people realize

Kudos to him to reflect and think about his thinking.

That was a perfect summary of all the perspectives and scientist interviews I've heard. Meaning people who care more about improving results vs care about ideology and politics

I've never liked the idea of enriching myself at my neighbor's expense. Maybe the guilt was too much for this guy as well.

Its so obvious and always has been. The only nuclear scares seem to be extreme human negligence and at least in one case, building the nuclear facility where it was susceptible to a natural disasters.

Brian needs to become our next US secretary of energy. I'd love to see the government invest in R&D for wave energy, geothermal, etc to optimize these methods - if so, maybe over next 20 years we could make these methods affordable and efficient enough to be suitable replacements

Glad to see prageru start to include nuclear as an option for comparison in these videos now. It has its pros and cons, and should be considered!

Many housing regulations and building discourage small solar projects, that would make the most sense for the most people, from being installed.

Finally someone who knows the truth and can convey it with intelligence.

I admire that he took a real look at the facts.

All I know is that when the timber companies did controlled harvesting of National Forests they rarely got burned up. Now only 8 years of hands off approach and we have wild fires a few per year now. As a side note the timber companies had to ‘clean p’ the harvest area removing deadfall and highly burnable shrubbery.

The more I learn about nuclear energy, the more I become a fan of it. Just keep it out of the hands of the government, yikes!

I was passively sold on the climate change narrative for a while (what did I know?), until a few years ago I encountered two narrative ideas that were literally impossible to both be true at the same time. At that point I decided it was time to drill down and do a deep dive. The first question I asked and investigated? "How does CO2 cause temps to rise?" Funny thing is, that is the very question that Destroys the climate change narrative, and I went nuts on the subject and fight back now any way I can. I very quickly realized there is naturally a max amount of energy a CO2 molecule can absorb, before it splits into carbon and oxygen. And I learned that our sun only emits a certain amount of energy on the spectrum CO2 absorbs, and that CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature, meaning that the more you add, the less it affects temp, with rapidly declining effect. There is so much more than that, but I dove into the issue in teh exact right spot.

If you get someone telling you their direct experiences with something and you see that little blue "oh no this is actually what you need to know", then you know the person speaking in the video is spot on. I'd ask how we got here, but I already know.

Wow, this was a very good video. I am impressed that someone actually has a thought process when coming up with ways to help the planet. Everywhere else on the internet people have no common sense!

Reliability is everything

It takes character to admit that you were wrong when that cause previously paid your bills.

100%. The biggest problem most initiatives have is that they fail to do a complete cost vs. benefit analysis. They cherry pick the things they want to weigh, because the other things are "too complex,", too hard to measure or just don't support their agenda. As a data analyst and as someone who cares deeply about our planet, this offends me; it's literally why we are still where we are. If it was simple, it would have already been solved. Let's do our best work, let's think deeply, and let's properly analyze ALL the inputs and outputs so we can arrive at real decisions and make a much better long term plan for how we'll manage energy consumption AND production.

I've been saying this for years. i wrote a college thesis in a science class about how solar and wind are worse for the environment than nuclear and far less efficient. I'm glad to see that nothing has changed in 13 years.

I just watched a video that said those wind mills use LOTS of oil. I had no idea. Also, since they have started the process of offshore wind farms that many whales have died from the sonic waves.

I too was like this man. Since my teens I’ve thought solar was the answer. Then realty hit and knowledge was needed.

I am retired and on fixed income, I am helping the PragerU group reach guys and girls like Dresendrei to show them they don't need to rely on school to Know how to get informed. Thanks PragerU

Thank You, this was a good video to give people a perspective on views of environmental protection. Making homes more energy efficient, if it is through better insulation and reduced air infiltration also makes them nearly draft free, adding great comfort in sub freezing temperatures. That is highly noticeable to more sensitive people typically better educated people in higher incomes. Other people may not recognize the higher comfort. In the 1980s with large improvements available in home internal environmental isolation, real estate agents would say people want higher insulated homes, but are not willing to pay for them. There is reason to believe that for house buyers without some better educated home knowledge, builders don't care about making homes tight or energy efficient even if building codes are meant to ensure that. I'm living it what is called a custom house as the second owner, my sister was also in that same situation. Both houses are remarkably tight and relatively draft free. My sister moved to a new production house as first owner and doesn't feel very comfortable. She's concluded it is because it isn't draft free and the care for making a hospitable environment of her previous custom house is missing. ------ Climate Change based on noncondensing greenhouse gasses is a pseudo science You probably know this, but Climate Change based on noncondensing greenhouse gasses is a pseudo science the same as astrology, in that they both make precise calculations and use scientific sounding language, but lack a provable underlining scientific mechanism. Earth's greenhouse effect is due to tropospheric water vapor at over 99% to a lower estimate of 97%. The dominance of water vapor in the earth's greenhouse effect makes it impossible for the noncondensing greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide and methane, to significantly change the greenhouse effect even if all their concentrations were cut in half or doubled or more. A reasonable estimate for increased average global temperatures from human caused carbon dioxide emissions reported in the early 1990s from a study funded by large oil and chemical corporations was 1/100°C at which time global warming was being reported at 1.1°C. That incredibly small amount of temperature forcing from human caused carbon dioxide emissions means it is impossible for them to be the cause of global warming as it was known at 1.1°C. Over a quarter century later in 2022 global warming is still being reported at 1.1°C showing no correlation with increased levels of human caused carbon dioxide levels in earth's atmosphere. The means by which the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change reports make it appear noncondensing gasses have a significant share in earth's greenhouse effect is clearly and transparently stated in the reports by listing the greenhouse gas samples were taken at an altitude of 20,000 meters above the troposphere where earth's greenhouse effect takes place due to water vapor and way into the stratosphere where water vapor is near zero. By taking the greenhouse gas samples in the stratosphere water vapor's share of greenhouse gas temperature forcing was reduced from 99% to just 60%. At this extremely low level of greenhouse gas concentration there is virtually no temperature forcing greenhouse gas effect. It makes no difference to earth's greenhouse effect in the stratosphere anyway. The IPCC reports only discuss greenhouse gasses as cause for global warming and only sample those gases outside the zone of earth's atmosphere where earth's greenhouse effect takes place. This makes the IPCC reports on no particular value for the discussion of global warming. How did this "tipping point" description start. After global warming was increasing in tenths of a degree Celsius per decade through the 1960s, 70s, 80s, to the early 1990s when it hit 1.1°C there was a great deal of concern that those increases through the 1990s would cross a tipping point causing stronger hurricanes and other global changes making it more than just an academic interest to the science and engineering audience. If the world would have hit 1.3°C of global warming by circa 1998 there should have been more spectacular hurricanes around the USA, not monsters, but scientists needed to make people aware of being prepared for larger storms. Then it never happened. Global warming stayed at just 1.1°C of the early 1990s and remained significantly unchanged to still being reported at 1.1°C in 2022. Scientists were taking a risk of being shown to be fools with no underling scientific mechanism for justifying continued global warming, but the trending was obvious. With over 30 years of increasing average global temperatures and the belief as those continue through the 1990s a tipping point will be crossed causing stronger hurricanes in the USA the right thing to do is to notify the public and governments that they should be preparing for stronger storms. 33°C of greenhouse effect reported in 2022 is different from earth science of the 1970s reporting it as 10°F or 5.55°C. When I studied earth science in early high school with my personal interest at that time with clouds I paid particular attention to weather creation. One of the earth's atmospheric features that I was suspicious of its actual value was the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect was described to raise earth's average temperature 10°F due to water vapor. The number seemed too high because water vapor more commonly called humidity varied greatly with weather and temperature. Water vapor's changing concentration should cause variations in temperatures that would be observable in some situations and I couldn't think of any after thing about the questions for days. It was likely water vapor as an insulator became less and less effective with higher and higher levels of water vapor, but even so there should be some observable change in temperature retention based on large difference in water vapor. I suspected with no better explication the 10°F attributed to earth's greenhouse effect could include an atmosphere heat retention constant scientists didn't have a better explanation for. There was no mention of any other gasses involved in earth's greenhouse effect. I remember the 10°F of increase average global temperatures attributed to earth's greenhouse effect very well because I was frustrated and thought about it for a considerable amount of time keeping my curiously up for years waiting for an explanation.

As a former environmentalist that has a susceptibility to the truth I realized long ago that many things activists support really aren't that important and the hue and cry is more about keeping their jobs than actually fixing anything. I cheer when I see obsolete dams being removed in the Pacific northwest so salmon can migrate to their spawning grounds. I'd rather see a vista or look at the sky on a clear day than a hazy day. I love to be in places where the only sign of humans is the thin track I'm standing on. I also like being able to get to the trailhead in a matter of hours in a motor vehicle instead of waking or riding a horse for days so I can just walk for more days. I like being warm in the winter and cool in the summer. Those competing goals must exist in compromise. That said, reducing greenhouse emissions is not an area where compromise is necessary. The claims that weather is hotter and storms more intense now than 100 years ago is patently false. If anything our greenhouse gas emissions are preventing the next ice age.

The "renewables" hypothesis is a catastrophe because it only ticks a few minor boxes and no, I am not against renewables. Fossil and nuclear generation must remain the primary energy sources. Thank you Brian for being honest.

That really puts things into perspective! Thanks for the informative video!

The cost of producing electric vehicles (and their batteries) and windmills and solar panels includes the cost of using fossil fuels to produce all that junk. The same can be said about recycling paper and plastics. Without subsidies, the "programs" don't work. That's enough reason to think twice about them.

BRAVO! An honest, thoughtful person from the environmental side of the equation! Most of those folks are all too happy to take the $$$ and run... (like the IPCC and the UN)

You guys a doing a great job with this short but interesting video. Keep it up!

We need more co2 if anything. During these droughts & man made food shortages it'd be nice to have more co2. It's all about control.

You are to be commended for your ability to self-reflect and honestly evaluate an issue. The problem with the energy debate is that half of the developed world is delusional. If you expect "climate change deniers" to open their eyes, you gotta start with yourself and understand that you've been lied to about the capabilities of wind and solar.

Nice to see that someone finally realize that renewables are not THE answer. They are very expensive and in 20 years you need to replace them again.

Finally someone who makes sense! I love the environment & believe we should take care of it, but many of these so called "green" policies are ludicrous & impractical. That's why I like this 5 principles are practical.

Excellent, well done as usual, and the perspective is important. A few things to fix: 1. No problem with greenhouse gas emissions. CO2 is coming out of your nose right now. For reference, see this Prager U video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OwqIy8Ikv-c.html 2. The word "nuclear" has the word "clear" in it. That helps remember how to pronounce it properly. 3. You show use of fossil fuels declining by 3 percent, but that's on a relative basis. On an absolute basis, fossil fuels, especially coal, are all up significantly. That's not a problem. It's fine for the environment. But it's better to understand the full context. Not sure your figure constitutes a return on the investment - need a better calculation for that. 4. Not good enough on the downside of renewables, which other Prager U videos do better. Overall, another good project, but a few misses.

Omg finally someone using common sense

I feel terrible for the those who get fooled into buying solar panels, who don’t realize the cost, and they may not realize how complicated and expensive it’s going to be to replace their roof shingles when the time comes.

This video started out good. Brian stated his life long endeavor to protecting the environment. As everyone on this planet SHOULD be thinking about. And, his five principles for determining the best energy options is spot on!! Here's where Brian lost focus, in my view. When list his "If we're serious about" Confronting Climate change, Protecting the Environment and Helping people get out of energy poverty. The middle one, of course, is always the priority. Period. However, climate change and energy poverty are both, to use his word, "fantasies". 1) There is no actual, empirical evidence that our increased CO2 emissions of the modern industrial age have any more than a nominal contribution to the greenhouse effect. The predictions are all based on computer models. And, those models are - less than accurate. Why? To test a models efficacy, the programmers put in all of the variables and constants they have gleaned from observation and enter the prevailing proposed theory. Then, they have the model look backwards. Yes. That's right. If it can predict what HAS happened, there is a greater probability it can see what will happen. The truth - Not a single model, since the first one used by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988, has "predicted" the climate past. AND we know what happened! We lived through it, right? Anthropomorphic Climate Change has not been proven. 2) Energy poverty is a new term. Conceived by the drafters of the Paris Climate Agreement. The Agreement mentions "Energy Poverty" 5 times in reference to nations who are not "First World" energy users. It is defined as lack of access to modern energy services. So, the first monies to be paid out from the "Green Climate Fund" (the part of the Agreement we, the US, must contribute to) will go to bringing those nations, 103 of them, to a standard level of access. In other words - global wealth distribution. Think about that.

Great work Brian! Scooby snacks for you.

If only our illustrious leaders would listen to the wisdom of this Scientist.

I never went to university and I knew this stuff already.

Thank you Brian for your honest assessment into this controversial and very under researched topic.

I would remind this guy that C02 is plant food. I mean really how do you think those giant redwood trees out in California grew so big is a relatively short period of time? C02 baby!!

I like it but I wished it focused more on debunking claims. I think a lot of your stats are accurate or in the right direction, but by not having more evidence based powerful arguments and instead very high level it's not likely to really convince anyone that doesn't already agree with you. And I think you could do that in 10-15 minutes, providing detailed but succinct arguments that identify hard to refute sources which debunk common urban legends.

Excellent PragerU.

FINALLY!!!! COMMON SENSE!!! Omg, thank you for speaking up!

I certainly commend you for your course correction. I too had to adjust but it was fortunately years ago. When I first received hockey stick graphic I was shocked, so began taking action. However, I analyze performance data and graphs often for my job. I tried to get the data for the graph but it was not available, which disqualified the depiction. I did my own research over the next two years to well understand this issue. I want to share this information to help you avoid future confessions and wasted efforts. I'm sorry to say that it is not only a financial catastrophe but rather completely false premises. Here are my findings; The demonization of CO2 emissions contradicts nature. CO2 emissions IMPROVE the climate as evidenced by the massive expansion of green plants. The EPA tracks about 130 pollutants, but CO2 is not on their list. Because it is not a pollutant. 2x atmospheric CO2 density increase would increase the "greenhouse" effect but the incremental change cannot be sufficient to measure. The CO2 greenhouse effect in our atmosphere is a logarithmic function. The effect is very nearly fully saturated at the existing density so there is almost no room left for any additional heat capture by CO2, regardless of density increase. The CO2 greenhouse effect has been massively exaggerated with statements that may be true, but misleading. One needs to well understand that IR band is very, very wide. CO2 is only resonant at a few wavelengths. So it can only absorb radiated heat within those bands. The heat from the Earth does not span the entire IR band, and if varies substantially across the band. There is really only one area centered at 667CM-1 where the heat from the Earth and CO2 match up well. CO2 does help heat the atmosphere due to this effect, but as I mentioned, that effect is well saturated. Methane gas cannot heat the atmosphere beyond todays effect, which is almost none, regardless of its density. The reason is that the Earth emits very little radiated heat within Methane's resonant bands. A decent analogy I use is; If you have a rain bucket in your garage it will not capture much rain. The garage roof is already capturing it all. So if you double the size of the bucket, it'll not capture any more rain. The garage roof is water vapor. Within Methane's resonant band, first there's little radiant heat emitted, and water vapor is very effective within the same band, and there's lots of water vapor so it wins every time. The CO2 greening effect can no longer be denied. NASA observations and measurements provided by their NEO satellite system indicate increased leaf area density and expansion of leafy plant area. This global greening effect has increased plant life and leaf density between 20-40% all around the globe. Even the Amazon Rain Forest has increased by 20% despite rogue deforestation efforts to grow corn. Sequestered Carbon limits life on Earth. All the oil, natural gas, coal, and concrete material were either once alive or were made by living organisms. The Carbon has to be returned to the atmosphere so it can be returned to living organisms. I wish we could increase atmospheric CO2 but the evidence that our emissions do not affect atmospheric CO2 density enough to measure. You can observe it yourself by checking the COVID 19 shutdown when gasoline vehicle operation was substantially reduced. Then check CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa at the same time. I was surprised but there was no change at all. Check EIA.gov for liquid fuel consumption to see the significant reduction of fuel burn. If CO2 density increases, many more plants with more leaves will appear. This is a stability component; one of several. I found the polar ice melting reports were massive exaggerations where they show a very small area receding but didn't talk about the overwhelming area not receding or growing. Then I discovered the area receding was due to an under water volcano. I've dug into every claim from Polar Bears to Great Barrier Reef, and Kilimanjaro only to discover the claims were not true, misleading via omission, or other causes which ARE proven, not speculated. I know it's a lot to choke down. Please feel free to contact me if you'd like to see data or my resources.

RU-vid: "We're committed in fighting mis/disinformation." Also RU-vid: puts mis/disinformation in the form of context under video.

People might find Alan Savory's story really interesting, along with his presentations on reversing desertification. He has many naysayers among the environmentalist left, since they apparently don't actually want real, proven, workable solutions - either at all or if they involve things they've demonized, like cattle, ranching and farming, etc. . So, eat the beef and watch Alan Savory's presentation at Harvard U ( had a nugget the other videos didn't, that I saw). Then, watch Sheldon Frith's rebuttal to Mike the Vegan's critique of Savory's method/info. Really thoroughly done, & politely crushed it !

👏🏼👏🏼 … when you allow common sense in your mind, you can do something good 👍🏽

Love all videos but this is my favorite cause on a smaller scale this is exactly what happened with me thru my environmental business.

Brother: "Green, green, green, let's go green" Me: "well, do you think any human impact on the environment can ever be good? Or is everything we ever do always bad?" Come on, people never talk about the benefits. They make a god out of nature by thinking any change is bad. Brought to you by a civil engineer (myself), a profession described by a former lecturer as a profession for "rapists of the environment".

I am glad you were able to reflect and see the error of your ideology.

This man is MY HERO!!

Thanks for the honesty.

It's worth noting that the chief vendor(s) for wind turbines build them in one way. The design is the same for all of them. This is crazy. Moreover, they're monstrously large and unsightly. How about turbines whose blade rotate around a central vertical axis? I've seen these, but no one seems to build them. Also, there is nowhere near the electrical grid capacity to run all these electric cars being mandated, and no plans to augment it to the necessary level. And somehow, environmentalists believe that the "pollution" from gas powered automobiles is much greater than the pollution from power plants it will take to power all the electric cars. I like this guy's points about the staggering land use needed for wind and solar. Let's have more environmentalists thinking critically. Because at this point, if an environmentalist says X, I automatically discount it as an example muddled thinking. I would even argue that there is no such thing as anthropogenic global climate change. CO2 is not the issue it is claimed to be, and climate has and always will change. It's the Sun, stupid!

Everyone please hit the 3-dots on the context add on provided by google, hit send feedback, and kindly tell them to shut up.

Oh to show this to those committed to renewables without consequences...

I am a Swiss engineer and I came to the same conclusion after working many years in the (alternative) energy field.

Excellent

Just curious....what happens in a green house that's so bad? Seems to me that's where things grow so we can feed other people.

I recently watched a video on the environmental impact of today's electric vehicles and in their studies. You need to put over 400,000 miles on it to break even with a petrol vehicle when you dig deep into all of the manufacturering and mining. That still doesn't address the current inability to recycle EV batteries. I believe that today's EVs are capable of upto a million miles on the original batteries. But most of the current buyers don't and will not keep them that long.

At 3:30 you omitted hydro as an energy source.

Yea, those Europeans who blindly jumped on the solar and wind bandwagon, now are wishing differant they were more realistic!

Practicality is a B. What certain environmentalists don't get is that the arguments presented simply means that we have to continue to look for something better. If nuclear isn't, then what is? How about we continue to search? Is that so wrong?

Thank you for the honesty.

Excellent point of view.. This week I received a post of a eletric bus in some place in Europe been charged of a diesel generator....

Yup... that's why we see all the subsidized Teslas on "Millionaire's Hill" and not in the middle-class neighborhoods - which is actually a good thing, considering their large CO2 footprint compared to, say, a small turbo-diesel sedan and the environmental devastation caused by mining rare earth elements for their hi-torque electric motors...

There is one mechanism that always, almost always, works and that is the free market. If an energy source can not find a market without the need for subsidies, then it should be abandoned as impractical. Many bad ideas could be eliminated if they were forced to compete in the free market. If the public is willing to spend their own money on a product that is the definition of a winner.

Thank you for trying to get some facts into the discussion.

Make America Engery Independent again !

Sounds like common sense kicked in!!

We have had the answer to our energy problems for a long time and everyone seems to dismiss it! If you want zero emission cheap power, it’s nuclear. People are just afraid of it!

Let's hope that those fixated on wind and solar as the only solution wake up before there is a lot of economic devastation. You can't fix much of anything when you are poor, cold, and hungry. Prosperity and solving environmental problems go hand-in-hand. Lose the prosperity and you can forget about all else, except trying to stay alive.

Investing in the global economy is not a security risk, it’s actually more economical than isolating the country.

I’ve always had questions about the amount of land used for solar panels. Why aren’t we putting the solar panels on top of buildings instead or finding some other alternative to solar farms taking up more land?

Wait til Brian finds out that CO2 doesn't change the temperature or weather...

You awesome, and rare. People dont like admitting being offbase. That you were able to course correct shows growth, I hope that is the part people take from your experience too, is that Its ok to change and develop your ideas, and many times shows growth.

It's nice to hear the part that environmentalists won't tell the public.

Brian! Dude! Run for President.

There's a difference between taking care of what God has created and worshiping nature as god the apostle Paul said fools worship the created and not the creators

Environmentalism -- The protection and purification of the environment - - is a good thing. But to do this effectively we have to rely on rational, objective science. Brian's presentation is a good explanation of how we need to keep everything in perspective and be practical about the ways to go about improving the environment for everyone.

And then you woke up with common sense and then were blessed with discernment. A gift beyond a gift. Thank you God 😊 and God bless Brian. Amen

Thank you.

This is what happens when people are bought on emotion and pseudo-crisis mentality, unless they have the fortitude to actually seek out the truth. But the truth unfortunately does not weigh well with emotionally driven people. This is what the left is comprised of and why they exclusively appeal to emotion when it comes to such issues (or any issues for that matter). Regarding environmental issues, the use of wind, solar, and biofuels are the worst forms of functional alternative energy. Simple calculator can sum up a lot of this. Got to hand it to the apostate leftist in the video. Congrats and welcome to the table of sanity.

I’m idling watching this 😂

Good analysis.

Another example of someone born a socialist, became a liberal in early adulthood and then smartened up through experience and became a conservative. The important part is that his eyes are open and realizes that the Green religion doesn't take into account the reality that it is not a simple formula.

This is as concise and honest of an environmental video you'll find. No propaganda, just common sense.

Impeach Brandon ✔️

It takes great courage to admit that you were wrong, especially if you were a thief.

Add to that the destruction of natural landscapes and rivers in the mining of lithium. Must of been a tough awakening for this fellow, but I’m glad he’s seen the truth