 Good morning. My task is to give you a little bit of the history of that. How do we get here? Why is this in CK's different than some of the dealers? Let's take a step back from the moment of 2015. Everyone here has probably heard of the Paris Agreement. What made the Paris Agreement different from the other bits of UNMCC's meeting? One of the ships was going from a goal about emissions to, say, a temperature. What is the definition of dangerous climate change? And we said two degrees, and let's really try to stay well below that. Could we get to one? Five to five. What does that agree with me? That's a 0.5 degree of global average. Not much of a difference. And quite frankly, nobody had a clear, concise answer for that. So what does the party do in UNMCC? You turn to our PCC. And you say, could you, as the subject of community, tell us this? That's really important in two ways. One is it actually sends a signal to the research community. An idea to speak and a program I've led over the past number of years, and I've led about adaptation, research in Africa and Asia, heard that, and this is a fantastic opportunity. And the UNMCC puts out a link that says, if you get something submitted or published by this date, we'll look at it. So that puts the wire under us to be able to say, okay, what is the novel evidence? What is the insight that you bring to something like this? And let's just take a step back for a moment. What is a global average? Now, you may remember your math class as an average. That's sort of like the middle number in a range of things. So when you see an increase of 0.5 or 1 degree, this isn't just shifting that much in one day. That's shifting the entire curve. And you end up with a thickening of, what are the possible outliers? And that's pretty interesting, in terms of what are some of the extreme events, high curve temperatures that are going on? So we knew this intuitively, but what was the science telling us? And we'll hear more about that in a little bit, but this was the call of the future to answer. I'm going to start with what my program and the 400 researchers we've been working with were able to crystallize as we passed them away. And actually, that's what I'm concerning. So if we just look at climatic hotspots, what are some of those locations we all know have a significant climate signal and are home to significant populations or informal people? Well, we know, for example now, that in the Hindu-Krishnamalaya region, that under a 1.5 scenario, over one quarter of the ice in those glaciers the populations will disappear, and under a two-degree scenario, about half. Now, what are the implications for a one-seventh of humanity that lives downstream and depends on those basins with air-water security? We now know that in similar climates, the variation in rainfall is going to continue getting more reddit. What does that mean, then, for power production, agriculture, human health? Those implications are very real, and in many ways are already being felt. Let's take Botswana, for example. We know now with this call to action to do the research, and we've done the research, that under a 1.5 scenario, there'll be 10 more hot days per year. And if you actually end up in two degrees, it'll be 17 more hot days. May's real yields will go down by 20%, and a 1.5 will be 36% under a two-degree scenario. Number of hot days where people are almost a heat stress will be 20 million hot days under a 1.5 scenario, or 40 under a two-degree scenario. So you're starting to see that this half a degree matters. What we can sort of disregard when we look at the weather forecast on a day basis, is that human life is changing a global average temperature change in terms of future climate. Because what that really brings together is some of those extremes, the thickening of the tails of the distribution there. Think of that not just with the average of heat. We know that deltas, it's a little bit slower in the onset there. We're probably not going to have measurable increase in sea level rise or deltas before the 2040s. But then look at it. Under a 1.5 scenario, we'll be looking at two-and-a-half times the amount of land area that will be subject to flooding. So these are some of the findings we were able to attribute to the IPCC, who then had to look over 6,000 different other publications and Indian sites to come together with their census report. And we'll hear a bit more about that later, but I just wanted to recount what I experienced and it has generated tremendous amount of media. And this week in a plenary session at the COP three hours of going through chapter by chapter and you could almost hear a pin drop there were thousands of people in a very quiet room in a very religious way. So this matters. I mean, we know now that you're at a very critical time. Depending on what you're looking at in terms of the threshold, we're looking at 2030 to 2040 in terms of reaching this scenario. And we know that because of the distribution there are places in the world that are already experiencing greater than 1.5. I mentioned it in the Christian Malayas earlier. A 1.5 global average is felt as in excess of two degrees there. Two degree increase would be equivalent of 2.7. You look at the IPCC's report and my own home in Canada is essentially a hotspot. The warming in the Canadian Arctic is greater than that average. And if you built your schools and roads in Iceland and Burma for us then it's turning to mud. That makes a humongous difference. My society is going to have to adapt. This isn't just about Africa and Asia. So what I wanted to highlight is that we're now seeing the beginning of meeting conversations and the end of my nose. I'm going to handle it from here. We're now asking ourselves so what was in that report? What does it mean for you? What does it mean for me? What does it mean for our communities, our homes? Our futures and our nows? And what we would like to do now is bring you into one of those conversations that's happening and then invite you to be joining this conversation. Thank you.