All right, so did you see the list of priorities being tweeted around? I think I talked about this before. Of the country's priorities, and climate change isn't even on the top 36. There was another poll of 18 priorities, and climate change came in 17th out of 18.

What happened to climate change? Why did climate change go from the biggest issue in the world literally to not an issue? Give me your opinions. What is your opinion of why climate change went from a top priority to almost no priority at all? Russia's low in the list as well.

All right, your comments are a little bit behind. So somebody says Trump killed it. Somebody said, "Was Rand Paul on the train that wrecked?" That's a terrible thought, but it's very funny. It's called weather. The people who say climate change, it's called weather, don't seem to understand anything about the conversation. Doesn't matter which side says that. Too boring.

Some people think it just got pushed down in the headlines by other stuff. The president made us forget. It was, yeah, but why? Why did we stop caring? What did the president do to make us stop caring? It wasn't just him.

So here's some speculation. I don't think it's one thing. I think it's the following things. I never trust any data that I see about climate change, whether it's from the left or the right. I assume it's all cherry-picked, taken out of context, illegitimate, fake. Doesn't matter which side is coming from. Doesn't matter what it says about the temperature. I figure it's all non-credible.

But correct me if I'm wrong. The evidence that has come out lately, it has been counterfactual to climate change, hasn't it? Am I wrong? It seems to me that the data doesn't seem to be supporting it, at least in the last year. Now one year doesn't mean anything because we're looking at the long game, but it looks like the evidence sort of waned. So that's part of it.

Another part of it is we pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords, and people figured out what that really meant. Because I think being in it, people thought, oh, we're in the Paris Climate Accords. I guess we're doing something to fix the problem. And then when people realized that the agreement had very little to do with fixing the problem, it almost wasn't even about that, I think people probably felt a little bit fooled.

So if you believed everything about climate change, you believed everything was true, and then you also believed the Paris Climate Accord was an important part of the full story, and then suddenly there's a really good and obvious case that says the Paris Climate Accord didn't make any difference. Now what do you think about the whole story when you find out that an important piece of it really wasn't exactly the way it was presented? Well, it changes the credibility of the whole story.

The other thing that changes the credibility is what we just said: if the weather doesn't cooperate. So even though today's temperature doesn't really mean much about climate change in general, these are counterfactual, anecdotal things that work against the belief. So you got that going on.

But I think there's another factor. You've watched me for two years argue that climate scientists had conflated the science, which has a lot of validity, with the prediction models that have none. Zero. And who besides me has talked so much in the last two years about how the prediction models are not credible even if the science is? I don't know if the science is. I'm not a scientist, but I'm not doubting it. If the majority of scientists say, hey, if you add this chemical to the mix you get more temperature, that part seems reasonable.

So I think the fact that people no longer feel a great trust in the models, the fact that the Paris Climate Accord was an overhyped, useless piece, and the fact that the temperature hasn't changed that much, and yeah, I think all of those things together — oh, and there's one other thing. So probably a lot of people have seen by now stories in the news about inventions that will suck the CO2 out of the air or clean it before it gets out of the smokestack, that sort of thing. And I think that people now see another way to solve it, which is technology.

Now what have I been telling all of you for years? That the one thing you can't predict — there are lots of things you can't predict, but one thing you definitely can't predict is innovation. It wouldn't be innovation if people could predict it. And people are starting to see the innovation variable kicking in. It's like, oh, people are inventing things to fix this. I did not have that in my model. My prediction model just says we're a bunch of big idiots and we don't do anything to fix anything. Now the prediction models probably are the reason that people are inventing things to fix it.

But I think you put all those things together — the Paris Climate Accord deal, the models being unreliable separate from the science (science could be solid but the models could still be unreliable), and the temperature not cooperating, and the new innovations in getting rid of CO2 from the air. You put all that together, you know, and then you make other things seem more important at the moment, and no more climate change.

Remember, the facts don't matter. Yeah, facts don't matter until you get enough of them. There's no such thing as a complete absolute. Wait, did that sentence contradict itself? There's no such thing as a complete absolute. Let me soften that a little bit. Most things are not binary. Most of them are not absolute. With climate change you could add a lot of counterfactual facts and it wouldn't change people's opinions. You could add a lot of them. But if you got to the point where all of the facts contradict climate change, well, people would change their mind. Most of them. Some of them still wouldn't. But you know, this hasn't happened. But if you got to the point where all of the temperature measurements for ten years were in the wrong direction, if you got to the point where somebody had built a machine that was already economically taking CO2 out of the air, that would change people's opinions.

So there is at least conceptually enough facts that could happen that would change what we think of things. Yeah, those Playboy models and Michael Cohen, those stories seem less now.