climate change is really a problem and i have now in recent weeks with my distinguished team of scientific colleagues finally found the missing piece of a proof we've been studying for something like eleven ye in twenty eighteen but this was the first run i was able to to give to this already as the fast indication of results and i result is this that the global ramming that we can expect if we double by the end of this century is in about one hundred fifty as a rimming of approximately one point two celsius to greet us about one such as a three point six celsius degrees which is the central estimate is supposed to do but in the global warming field they socialists and communists the centralizes the bureaucrats have taken over the issue and have tried to peddle the notion of a ninety seven percent point three percent explicitly stated that recent global warming was mostly caused by man why didn't the other state that because of weather a lot it is true we did not know yet the isn't enough evidence to establish the answer either we have no proof that there is a ninety seven percent consensus but in fact it's no point three there is no consensus that most of the roaming that was called bad even if that were true which it may or may not be it was still don't tell us that that rate of warming was a toll dangerous we can prove and prove definitively one of the most ancient and powerful methods of mathematical argument leading to a definitive conclusion that the elements in the future global warming difference to the climate to the temperature they would only put it up by at most of a tense maybe at that maximum a fifth of a celsius degree it's very very small beer and they had previously been using these feedbacks as a way of saying that instead of getting just the one point two celsius that they say would be directly caused by c o two that becomes more like three point six no it doesn't it's actually still one point two and even that may well be a high figure but we but the systematic adding of c o two to the atmosphere that we're doing has be the ice it's probably fair to say the main cools not dan nichols but the main cause of the increase in syria to concentration since approximately seventeen you might think there might be a few hundred or a few thousand actually more than three and a half million and these sufficient variation in their activity to explain some part of the role mean that we've seen over the last twenty or thirty years so there's no way that week and yet i answer questions like that because we haven't done the measurements and this is one of the most important points that climate science he's old too unwilling to at mit that where we do have measurements they are usually insufficiently well reserved to be useful as they don't go back far enough to be useful and i didn't most of the important areas where we precisely specify the area you are looking at to see what effects it has it having on regional temperature for disease the record relation he is beginning to do that in fact it's my suggestion that he's doing it it's a very interesting project it is across  unpopular with those who are peddling at least one narrow view but it's all to do with man and nothing else but it is exactly the kind of research that needs to be done to establish a baseline from which we can that mankind is perhaps responsible for the remainder but across the significance of the result in the context of this question of whether the volcanoes both above ground and most particular under the sea all having an impact is  exaggeration of the effect of feedbacks on temperature have led them in the past to predict the rate of roaming and even though they have had to bring down their short to medium term forecasts it to make them in line with the very much slower rate roaming that's been observed that was recently predicted they have not been honest enough to bring down the longer range forecasts of what might happen in one hundred or two hundred years time they have left improperly and unscientific when they have been compelled to alter the short term focus and this frankly is just one of the many examples of dishonesty that the intergovernmental panel on climate change and so many climate scientists seem to me to be guilty  not doing this with sufficient objectivity you have to be able to sit back and say whatever our politics whether we believe in democracy or communism and young people on the whole tend to believe in communism and people who are older and wiser believe in democracy found in the method of calculating how much level running there will be if we are right that is a definitive incomplete proof then we can say there is certainty that on that proposition we are right but you can't claim certainty about the effect of man on if i wasn't a christian because we are at least that there is a morality which we should follow and one of the most distressing things that i have come across here in america in recent months corporate by the f b i and other security services together with the oregon state police shoot me you shoot may but don't shoot my wad don't you to anybody else just let me go about my business conducting an international investigation into whether this was corporate matter or whether the rather justification for what was done i will be looking in particular at the question of rye the only good sheriff did not give a full and proper account sign of doing so doesn't seem to have anything to do with the current definition of a terrorist so what is happening is that these joint terrorism task forces are now busy chasing around the country off to every christian pastor they come across but they don't just because your christian you are likely to do that to get your math wrong because if you say that two thirds of this country's east practicing christian it's a kind of guess you're looking at seventy two or three hundred million and quite frequently did so one of the most important aspects of the red pill expert when we are looking at these merril quest is have a for instance the link between science and religion calls because anything that goes against the party line in the vatican isn't necessarily a welcome they don't do dialogue and that was a shame because the church has very strict rules about this then the eighty's improper for his stuff to reject very clear evidence that what he was about to say was wrong and to refuse to talk to the eminent professors of science all of his contact details i had supplied so that again to the very socialist and chiefly the young people's faction which increasingly turns away from religion and they substitute for religion that is communism and of course it spirit should acting through the cardinals have chosen the present and i don't mind that it's now when we've just had two guys and i don't mind that but i do think that he needs to be very careful in delightful and clubbable and charming as we would say in britain as i had expected but i found him to be unexpectedly intolerant have a scientific balance on the climate change and feeble minded but it makes the institutions that you represent looks to put into an ad people like you damage the papacy by straying into an area of science which is not the job of the papacy and you demean the institution by doing s has been published and has been not overturned by the scientific committee once that has happened then i think we will be able to say to people like the governments who have signed up to this no spend t that people should be sent away from the universities or interfered with even killed as one university professor said if they dead to question that we have question and we have not found any proof of beat wrong for