t has to be looked at on its own, nobody likes it. Well, that's an exaggeration, but it's not so popular.

And that brings us to Greta Thunberg. And I tweeted yesterday that Greta Thunberg caused this mess. And by this mess I mean Ukraine. Now do you all see the connection? Because I'm not joking. Greta Thunberg, she sort of caused the Ukraine war. Does everybody see it? I can explain it if... okay, there I get a few nos there. So let me explain it.

So it goes like this. If we didn't have Greta, climate change wouldn't be as potent a topic as it is. That's a presumption on my part, right? So that part's speculative, but I think most of you would agree with that, that she's turbocharged the topic. She's added a lot. Most people would agree with that.

Now if climate change did not have such a, let's say, persuasive quality to it, how would Trump's policy about energy look compared to Biden's? Biden didn't really have a choice, did he? You know, if you're a Democrat, don't you have to go full Thunberg or at least move in that direction? He didn't go full Thunberg by any means, but he had to be pushed in that direction, right?

So one of the things that Trump would have done that we know for sure that Biden did not do is promote domestic energy production in the United States. Because Biden wants to be more green and save the world and be more Greta Thunberg, and Trump was more, I think this climate change thing was a Chinese hoax to slow down our economy. Let's pump oil and gas as much as we can, build some pipelines and be independent and build up our economy. And by the way, when you substitute gas, natural gas for coal, it reduces your emissions.

So Trump, who was criticized for saying that climate change was a Chinese hoax — I think we're all sure even the Democrats would say this is true — he would have kept the domestic energy production high, which means that prices for energy would have been lower, which means that your inflation would be lower under Trump in that one way. Yet Putin would have far less money to be adventurous, and he would basically have less power. Because if Europe needed to get a different source of gas for a while, it might cost more, but if you took some of the inflation out of it, the more wouldn't be as much as it would be now.

So you've got a situation in which energy is sort of the most important product because there's not enough of it, which makes Putin the most important person because he's got an army and he's got energy. He's got the two things that matter the most today. So quite reasonably you could say that the connection between Greta Thunberg and her influence, which was very effective, definitely put pressure on Democrats. The Democrats definitely reduced energy production. The reduction in energy production definitely increased the cost of energy, which definitely increased the profits for Russia, which definitely increased their strategic power, which definitely increased their confidence, which almost certainly was a major factor in getting exactly where we are now.

Who disagrees with that analysis? Now I'm not going to say it's the only variable, right? You know, maybe Putin would have done what Putin was going to do. But you can see the connection, can't you? It does seem like it's maybe 2