o short a period.

However, common sense tells you that if you add 20 years of increasing CO2 and the temperature didn't go up, I'm not saying that happened, I'm just saying that as we observe it we're anecdotally driven, right? Humans are. Anecdote: if you see one example of something, "Hey, it snowed today. I guess there can't be any global change or climate change." So it seems to me that the anecdotes have become unfriendly to the climate change hysteria. Is that true or not? Are you feeling that the anecdotes are not and the data is not supporting it like it used to? A little more sketchy scientific situation now. That would work toward Trump's favor, right? If we were in a serious frenzy about climate change there's no way Trump could win. No way.

But in a world where everything that the scientists and experts have told us seems to be wrong, how has climate change looked now? If we had never had the pandemic, wouldn't climate change look more secure as a theory? It would, because we'd be believing all those experts, wouldn't we? Well the experts said so. Experts said so. I guess the experts say so. So what are we going to do? We're just unwashed citizens. Those experts. But now that we basically don't trust experts, the entire climate change argument lives on one thing: experts. That's it. Because you and I can't penetrate climate change, right? Did you do your own analysis? Do you have your own climate change model? No, we have no access to it. We only have access to the experts telling us stuff.

So in a world in which all experts have been discredited in 2023, doe