es sense. It's the first time I thought of that. That was a good comment and now I have to think about it a little more. Is there any connection there or is that a coincidence?

Is it a coincidence that the people who want to create their own humans don't want as many to come from the outside, but the ones who can't or won't think they need some more outside people because they can't make their own? Huh. Kind of makes sense.

All right. Rasmussen also asked who's in favor of drilling, doing more drilling. Sixty percent of the country was leaning in that direction, which makes sense. You know, that's basically most Republicans and you pick up a few independents and stuff, I guess. And 52 percent said Biden should focus on oil and gas prices, which I don't know how you could do much about them except for drilling more and building more pipelines. And 34 percent say we should focus more on limiting carbon dioxide emissions. So that's where we are as a country.

Now, what would the country look like if half of the country were not convinced that we had a catastrophe in the next hundred years? I feel as though the news has really changed the entire nature of innovation and technology. That in fact the direction of civilization itself is really kind of dependent on what we think about climate change, isn't it? So climate change is kind of the macro thing that's guiding everything, all the smaller decisions.

What if it's wrong? It would mean that the news basically trimmed 50 trillion dollars off the GDP for no good reason. But I do think that fighting against climate change, even if it's not going to be a catastrophe, which I think it won't be because I think we'll respond to it, not because it isn't a problem. Just to be clear, I'm not saying it's not a problem. I just think we'll figure out how to respond to it adequately.

Let's talk about 2000 Mules. Everybody says, "Scott, why don't you go watch Dinesh D'Souza's big hit movie 2000 Mules," which refers to the mules being humans who allegedly ballot harvested and brought ballots to boxes and maybe stuffed them with people who weren't going to vote on their own. So we don't know exactly what crimes may or may not have been perpetrated there.

But here's the worst advice I'm getting. It goes like this: "Scott, Scott, Scott, do not form an opinion on this movie unless you've watched it." Does that sound reasonable? Do you think it's reasonable that I should not form my opinion until I watch the movie? How many think that that's a reasonable thing to say? Pretty reasonable, right? But to have an opinion on a movie without watching it, what would that make me?

Well, what would you think of me if I had a strong opinion about the movie or didn't have any opinion but I had not watched it? Yeah, you're all wrong. You're all dead wrong. You could not be more wrong than the answers you give me right now. And I'm going to change your mind and you won't believe how easily I'll do it.

Because right now the most obvious, clear, smartest thing that anybody could say is that you have to watch the movie before forming an opinion. That is the cleanest, most obvious thing anybody could ever tell you. It's also 100 percent wrong. One hundred percent wrong. Couldn't be more wrong.

Now let me change your mind. Give me 60 seconds. Sixty seconds, I'll change your mind. Watch the Michael Jackson documentary that says he absolutely definitely molested a bunch of children. Absolutely. When you watch that documentary you will be convinced that he definitely did those crimes. Then watch the documentary that came out later that says that the accusations are false and there's no way he did any of that stuff. You know what will happen? You will walk away completely convinced that he did nothing and that he was set up. I'm done.

If you think watching one documentary tells you something, you don't know anything. You've learned nothing. You've learned nothing. So if you think that watching the documentary will give me an opinion that will tell me that either there was fraud or there was not, you're so wrong you could not be more wrong. I will not form an opinion after watching the movie. I promise you I won't. I'll watch the movie. I'm definitely going to watch the movie. You don't have to argue about that. But I'm not going to form an opinion from it.

Why? Why will I not form an opinion after watching it? And why did you? You all formed an opinion. Why are you all wrong and I'm right? Because you haven't seen the opposite documentary, have you? If somebody made another documentary whose only purpose was to debunk this documentary, do you think it would be persuasive? It might all be lies but it would be persuasive, right?

I'm not saying that the debunk would be the accurate one and this is not accurate. Could easily be the opposite or they're both inaccurate. It could be any of those things. But if you don't understand that any good documentary will convince you it's true, you haven't learned a thing.

Let me say that again because I want to insult you a little bit because I want you to feel this. Like I want you to be mad at me right now. Like I actually want you to be a little pissed off at me. If you think that watching any documentary gives you information, you're wrong. You're as wrong as you could be. You could not be more wrong about anything than that.

Now, but let me say clearly I do have my suspicions about the election and I do imagine, well I'm quite sure of it, I'm sure if I watch the documentary I will be even more certain at the end of it that something sketchy happened. Those of you who have seen it, would you agree with that assessment? That if I watch it I will certainly come away with the impression that something sketchy happened? Right now, why do I have to watch it since I already know what will happen? Doesn't your advice sound ridiculous now?

There's a hundred percent chance that I know what will happen if I watch it without even knowing what the content is. There's a hundred percent chance it will convince me. So that's the reason that I'm telling you that if you were convinced by the documentary, the only thing you learned is that documentaries are persuasive.

If you think you learned that an election was sketchy because you watched a documentary, and this is not about Dinesh D'Souza, this is not about 2000 Mules, this is about thinking you learn something from a documentary, it doesn't work that way. The documentary is meant to show you one side. If you don't see the other side you know absolutely nothing.

Like, okay, I'm being too much of a dick about this but how many of you are bothered and persuaded at the same time? Have I made my point? If you feel certainty because you watched a documentary, no matter how well done, no matter how accurate, no matter how credible, no matter how correct, if you formed a certain opinion by watching one side you've learned nothing. You've learned nothing. In five years, nothing.

And I'm really disappointed. Honestly, I'm seriously disappointed. Do you not see that you're being fed exactly what you wanted to believe? How hard is it to convince you of something you already believed? It's easy. It's easy. So just be a little bit more critical about this movie please. Please be