 Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow leaders, for all the immediate challenges that we gather to address this week, terrorism, instability, inequality, disease, there's one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other. And that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate. Five years have passed since many of us met in Copenhagen. And since then, our understanding of climate change has advanced. Both in the deepening science that says this once distant threat has moved firmly into the present, and into the sting of more frequent extreme weather events that show us exactly what these changes may mean for future generations. Frequent extreme weather events. This is extreme weather alarmism, and it's nothing to do with climate, because climate is weather over a very long time, and in a minimum point on a graph of 30 years. So what we're going to do now is expose how they're using extreme weather alarmism to scare people. No nation is immune. In America, the past decade has been our hottest on record. Well, until 1999, according to official USA government records, the 1930s were the hottest time on record. That was the time of the Dust Bowl, of course. And they changed the data historically to lower it, and also they increased current temperatures on their adjustments. But the historic evidence for the 1930s Dust Bowl is overwhelming. It's where millions had to leave huge areas of central USA. There is a huge amount of evidence that this drought was worldwide. How Obama can claim that this generation are experiencing weather extremes just to suit his CO2 propaganda defies belief. Along our eastern coast, the city of Miami now floods at high tide. I will just have him repeat that. Along our eastern coast, the city of Miami now floods at high tide. The city of Miami floods at high tide. How it's actually there this year in 2020. And I can promise you, it does not flood at high tide. Here is an aerial shot of how Miami is at the moment. And you can see the inland waterway there on the inside. And you can see the sea on the other side. And you can see how low-lying it all is. Yes, it is low-lying. And really, all the hotels on the beach are still there and not flooding. What it is, is that some of the sinkholes and some of the water abstraction in the area of Miami has caused the land to sink a bit because it's basically sucking out the water from underneath. And as we know, the whole of Florida is full of sinkholes. A lot is built on reclaimed swamps. But there's nothing to do whatsoever with rising sea levels. It is still OK to go to Miami for a holiday. I promise you, not much has changed. In our West, wildfire season now stretches most of the year. But nothing like they did in the past, Mr. Obama. Here is a graph of the wildfires in America going back to the beginning of the 1900s. And you can see the remarkable decrease that has been in wildfires in America. Same for Australia, by the way. The exact opposite of the truth and the alarm that is being peddled. In our heartland, farms have been parched by the worst drought in generations and drenched by the wettest spring in our history. This graph shows in brown all the drought periods, the dry periods in American history, from official government figures, I would add. And you can see that the 1930s were far worse than today. Underneath that are the wet periods. They're shown in green. And you can see that there is not much difference between the past and now. And for the record, the most destructive flooding in USA history was the Mississippi flooding in 1927, well before man-made CO2 could have had any influence on the climate. And about 10 years later, in 1937, the Ohio flood made a million people homeless. You cannot use extreme weather events to show a change in climate. You have to have a pattern of them over a long time. A hurricane left parts of this great city, dark and underwater. And hurricanes always have, Mr. Obama. But more importantly, there were more of them and greater intensity in the past. This graph, if anything, of hurricane frequency and amount shows a decline in hurricanes. Four out of the five deadliest hurricanes in US history occurred in 1893, which had two. 1900 and 1928, well before CO2 from man had any effect. You are just fear mongering, Mr. Obama, not going on facts, not going on science, just pure fear. As one of America's governors has said, we are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it. Let's just hear those few words again. We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change. We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change. We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change. Tell the people in Galveston in the year 1900 who felt that hurricane. Tell the 8,000 to 12,000 people who died in that hurricane. And while you're at it, Mr. Obama, tell it to the victims of the Mississippi flood in 1927, where over 10,000 people lost their homes and were displaced. We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change. Over the past eight years, the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution by more than any other nation on earth. Wow, a long-lasting truth. That is absolutely true. But the reason is fracking. Fracking is a cleaner gas than the alternative fossil fuels that were being burned. And therefore, the USA did reduce its amount to CO2. But not because of any particular measures by Mr. Obama, but because the USA allowed fracking. Thank you very much. We all know exactly what is needed to make a good deal here in Paris. We need a deal that keeps two degrees alive. So David Cameron here is claiming we have a thermostatic control knob that can control the amount of CO2, and thereby control the weather and the temperature of the earth. All the ice ages, all the huge fluctuations in the Earth's history has got nothing to do with it. No, we rely on this pure little knob that we turn up and turn down, the arrogance of man. This isn't a question of the rich West saying, well, we've managed to grow. We've put all this carbon up in the atmosphere, and you're now going to have to pay the price for our growth. That mustn't happen. And we have to be much more permissive with the developing world and the poorer countries of the world who need to develop. So we've got to help them develop in a low carbon way. That means transferring the technology we have about wind power and wave power and other renewable technologies. It means having a proper price for carbon in our own economy and eventually throughout the world economy. And it means actually making sure that they can develop in a way that is far more fuel efficient and carbon efficient for themselves. This, of course, is absolute nonsense. The fact is that the CO2 curve has just grown and grown and grown. Here it is with all the different conferences on. It makes no difference at all. Why? Because coal plants in India and in China are being installed at an incredible pace. The output is increasing tremendously. So the Paris conference limits the West, limits industry in the West, whilst at the same time allowing tremendous growth in CO2 output from the rest of the world, in particular India and China. I mean, if the whole of Wales in the UK, for example, disappeared from the face of the Earth as you got CO2, output zero, India alone would make up the CO2 we've just dropped in four or five days of growth. That's how insignificant we are. The whole of the UK outputs about 1.3% of the world's CO2. 1.3%. You do not have to accept my word for all this. You just have to look at the CO2 growth in the world that carries on unabated despite any of the conferences. It's all just hot air. It has no effect other than to depress industry in the West and hand business to the East. Let's now look at Al Gore. The fearmaster whose every prediction has been wrong. Another new study to be presented by US Navy researchers later this week warns it could happen in as little as seven years, seven years from now. But the fact is it didn't happen in 2014, 15, 16, 17, 18, or even today in 2020. Well, the same forecast, actually forecast, that the UK would be in the grip of Siberian weather on a permanent basis by 2020. It's hard to capture the astonishment that the experts in the science of ice felt when they saw this minimum in 2005, which meant that the amount of ice that had melted, it's been roughly the size of the continental United States minus an area roughly the size of Arizona, nothing against Arizona. But the amount that melted in 2005 was equivalent to an area covering everything east of the Mississippi River in the United States. Well, Al Gore repeats his message of 2007 and 2009, and it's still wrong. Let's look at actually what is happening in the Arctic. Here is a graph from the Tony Heller website. And as I said before, that's easily the best site to do with climate change on the internet. What it shows over the years is the cyclical nature of the Arctic sea ice. It responds to all sorts of things, but what is clear, it does not respond to the continuing growth of CO2. Otherwise, you'd just see a gradual melting right through the century. All the alarmist graphs start at 1979. And here you can see why, because from 1979 onwards, there's a fall in sea ice, but it totally ignores the previous history, absolutely ignores it. And this is a standard trick of the alarmist. They choose the starting date to show a distorted picture of the truth. So what this cycle shows is the natural decrease early on in the last century from the little ice age as the ice melted. And we have less than we have then, yes. But if you look at 1955, we had far less ice than we have now. So since 1955, the ice overall has grown. Now armed with that knowledge, let's look at what Al Gore has to say, and what he's doing is using those details since 1979 to show the little dips and how alarming they are, but not putting anything into the context of the history of the ice sheet in the Arctic. Then, when the real shock to the scientists came was in 2007, when this happened, and their phrase was it fell off a cliff. And then the extra amount that melted was this much. And some of the models suggest to Dr. Mazlowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire North Polar Ice Cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years. Saying that in 2009, he's predicting a 75% chance of the ice cap disappearing in the summer months from 2014 to 2016. And it's now 2020 and it's still there today. I'll end over now to somebody else to critique what Al Gore has just said. Or even tomorrow morning. I mean, say it ain't so, though. I mean, say it ain't so. Living God, Al Gore, is wrong on something. Actually, he's wrong on lots of things, but on this one, he predicted, as you heard there, that the Arctic ice cap would have vanished by now, really. Satellite images, oh dear, they show this. It's got thicker. A bit, Larry Goldstein, isn't surprised. I shouldn't say this about Al Gore, but he just sounds as though he has no idea what he's ever talking about. But people always assume that this is a great truth, a great slice of wisdom being offered to the people. Well, he's not a climate scientist. He's a popularizer of climate science, but he's generally a popularizer of, I wouldn't say bad climate science, but I would say what he does, his whole gig is that he takes the most extreme example and says that's the expectation. You know, he was careful to say one study. Well, yeah, but one- We put you two there, actually. Yeah, well, one for 2020 and one for, well, I'm sorry, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change doesn't have anything that dramatic. And look, there's always a grain of truth in what people like Mr. Gore say. The Arctic ice cap has been declining. It reached a record low in 2012. Now it's recovering. As you said, the ice is thicker and there's more of it. It's about 1.7 million square kilometers more roughly the size of Alaska. So you had a low and in terms of what is obviously, one would think, natural variation, ocean currents, those kinds of things, there is a recovery. We will now quickly deal with more of Al Gore's predictions. Michael Schellenberger has been a leading environmentalist for decades. He has spoken in front of the US Congress and is listened to by many people throughout the world. But recently he published a book, Apocalypse Never, and he's basically spilled the beans. He over time became disgusted with what was going on around him. And even the White House had to discredit a friend of his. These are his words. By the way, Michael has now been shunned by that movement and has been heavily attacked. And this alongside with other leading left-wing environmentalists, if you like, also beginning to desert the movement. There is maybe some hope for the future. The climate change movement today is not science. It is an alarmist left-wing agenda. I'm now going to leave you with Michael's own words spoken by him. Michael Schellenberger, thanks so much for joining us. How does someone go from being a Time Magazine environmental hero to apologising for climate alarmism? Well, I've been working on environmental issues for a really long time. 33 years as an environmental activist. I've been a climate activist for 20 years. I've seen a lot by now, and I know the science well enough to know that climate change is not a catastrophic threat. I kept waiting for climate scientists to speak out against the alarmism, these apocalyptic, the world's going to end, buildings will die, all that stuff last year. Nobody did. I think it's actually quite irresponsible that nobody did. And I've got a 14-year-old daughter. And while she's fine, because I talked to her about the science and I explained science to her, her friends are very alarmed and very anxious, and they've been misinformed. And, you know, adolescents these days, they have a lot of things to worry about. Anxiety and depression are rising among everybody, really, but certainly among adolescents. And I thought it was not right to be terrorizing, you know, schoolchildren and giving them false information. I felt like somebody needed to separate out science from science fiction. Yeah, to make it very clear here, you're certainly not a climate denier. You're certainly not talking down the issues of climate change and global warming and the fact that you want to see action. But it's that alarmism, that catastrophism that you're railing against. That's right. I mean, I'm quite proud of the fact that I'm asked to testify before a number of different governments had testified in front of the Congress in January. I was invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to become an invited expert reviewer late last year. And I know for a fact that there are people that are involved in IPCC who are also bothered by the alarmism and wanted to see some pushback to that and some better communications of this. And so I felt emboldened that I needed to speak out. And I think that the majority of scientists are not activists. There's actually just a handful of scientists that feel the need to terrify people. And I go into sort of what are their motivations in the book as well. Well, do you think that the whole global climate change movement, the global campaign, if you like, has turned its back on rational thought and logical debate and has gravitated towards a motive posturing? Well, it's a question of whether there was ever something called the environmental movement that was rational. I mean, there was something we called a conservation movement which was focused on protecting wildlife and the habitats that they occupy that existed up until about 1970, at which point this anti-human Malthusian tradition took over. And it really is the paranoid side of environmentalism. It's this neurotic concern with having your body being poisoned. It really had more to do with fear of nuclear weapons. But it also had to do with some kind of first world problems of neurosis and paranoia and really radical left thinking. I think everybody kind of knows what we're talking about here. And that really took over the conservation movement, which was a very humanistic and rational movement up until around 1970. So for me, I don't think this is really that complicated. I think we need to lift everybody out of poverty and we need to do our best to protect natural places. And things have just spiraled out of control. I mean, this climate change thing, it just got too crazy. And somebody had to say something. And I just was at this point in my career, I was like, if I don't do it, I just know that nobody else is going to do it. So much.