e62009e6-0db0-48ea-880a-dce327ebe581

This is about the global problem of increasing average temperatures due to human action. The speaker believes there is an absolute consensus on this issue, but is worried that we lack the political institutions, will, and organization to respond effectively. They are also concerned that someone inspired by a scientist who values empirical evidence is quoting consensus instead. The speaker mentions corrupted data and manipulation by NASA, and emphasizes that politics and policy should be based on empirical evidence rather than consensus or appeals to authority. 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 we can't. No, I'm not. 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 consensus. Can I just say, I brought the graphs. First of all, that the data has been corrupted, and we know that the 1930s... Corrupted? What do you mean corrupted? Being manipulated by NASA. 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 illusions. Hang on, hang on, hang on.