This is now a clear global problem. The absolute, absolute consensus is that human action is leading to an increase in average temperatures. Absolute consensus. I know you may try to argue with that but you can't.
No, I'm not mad at you, I will. So, but therefore, the key point is can we respond to it? Do we have the political institutions and the political will and the organization globally to respond to this challenge and that worries me immensely I don't think we do at the moment. And I'm absolutely stunned that someone who is inspired by Richard Feynman, a fantastic scientist who believes in empirical evidence, is quoting a consensus.
Can I just say, I brought the graph, right? I mean, can I just... First of all...
That the data has been corrupted and we know that the 1930s were... What do you mean by corrupted? Corrupted, what do you mean corrupted? Been manipulated.
By whom? By NASA. NASA? Yes.
As far as I'm concerned, politics should be based on empirical evidence. All policy should be based on empirical evidence. I've heard consensus, which is not science.
I've heard appeals to authority, which is not science. I've heard various allusions... You've seen a graph.
Hang on, I've heard... Um... Hang on.
What do you have to do? I'm gonna let you go. Hang on, hang on.
Hang on, Brian. Seriously?