 Yet you all come to us young people for hope, how dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words, and yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering, people are dying, entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is the money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. So on what basis does Greta give all these predictions, give all this alarm? You know, there must be incredible evidence for her to have the power to address the world, the United Nations and many governments. Children being let off school to listen to her. So what is the underlying science behind these incredible predictions Greta? Mr. Chairman, Ms. Thunberg, thank you for your involvement here today. I commend you for your willingness to to testify and get involved with public policy. In the past when you're talking about climate change, you have said quote, I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. Is there what particular study or scientific report did you read that made you come to this conclusion? Thank you for a question. First of all, let me just clear that those are metaphors. In speeches you often use metaphors. Of course, I don't mean literally that I want people to panic. So there was no scientific study that made me come to that conclusion. So we now live in a world where without any scientific foundation whatsoever, a young girl unfortunately has some mental problems, is allowed to not just speak to the UN and be applauded for it, but to actually travel the world, giving this message of fear to children and have no scientific basis whatsoever for doing so. We, the people Thank you. In a way, we haven't made much progress because back in the 17th century when we had the witch trials, we had children like a nine-year-old girl who accused people of being witches and those people were executed. To me, it's the same thing. Without any foundation in truth or science, children accuse people of certain events. They then get society to act on what they're saying. The only difference now is instead of nine, it's 16-year-olds. So suppose we made about seven years progress. In Wales and the UK, they have actually declared a climate emergency. I suppose that seems okay on the basis of all the big film stars saying there is one. We can be sure it is not the science. Extinction Rebellion is of course no better, still not based on science. There are some clips of the Andrew Neil interview with them. Weather-related disasters. There seem to be a lot of them around at the moment and people die from them. But on the latest figures I've seen, a hundred years ago weather-related disasters killed half a million people a year. Today, it's 20,000 a year, still 20,000 too many, but it's a reduction of 95,000. It doesn't lead to the reduction of 95%, it does not lead to a death of billions. You're scaring people with this rhetoric, aren't you? I think there's a danger of scaring people simply because we're not taking it seriously enough and people are feeling really desperate that we're heard on this. And unfortunately, alarmist language works, which is why we're discussing it right now. But does it work? It could. I mean, I've seen young girls on television, part of your demonstration, particularly the school ones, when they take the day off to demonstrate, crying because they think they're going to die in five or six years' time, crying because they don't think they'll ever see adulthood. And yet there is no scientific basis for the claims that your organisation is making. The young people that I've spoken to aren't crying because they think they're going to die in a few years. It's because they don't see their children as having a future, they don't want to have children and they're worrying about, you know, coastal regions going underwater. What regions going underwater? Well, let's take Al Gore's prediction, because New York should be underwater by now. But it isn't. And he wasn't the only one predicting that. You know, the Maldives going underwater, other countries, and island nations going underwater. Yes, much was made of the Maldives going underwater. But actually, a NASA survey from satellites showed that the Pacific islands are all getting bigger, as are the ones in the Indian Ocean, including the Maldives. And to be more specific, as per this report, the Maldives, along with other islands, have grown by some 8% over the last six decades. The mass displacement that's happening, the weather extremes, which may be on a downward trajectory, but climate scientists are telling us that they will be on the increase. So she accepts that these events are on a downward trend, not an increasing trend. Ah, well, we're being told they will increase. Actually, there is no justification for that at all. In fairness to that lady, she did after that interview leave Extinction Rebellion and started to promote nuclear power as the solution. For the last 50 years, we have been bombarded with predictions like the ice caps melting and they haven't, like New York going underwater and it hasn't, like the Maldives disappearing and they haven't. Why are we listening to these people? They are wrong time and time again and you'll always find one great thing. They'll predict the future. No matter how many false predictions they made in the past, we're supposed to ignore that. Recently a producer tried to arrange a debate between myself and two world famous professors, both of whom had written books on climate change and in that sense were on the alarmist side of the argument. I was very happy to take both of them on on the stage, but unfortunately one of them insisted on controlling the meeting as well and they also made it clear they can't allow any discussion that would cast doubt on the science. They made the whole exercise pointless. But nevertheless, when challenged on the alarmism, this emergency question, the answer was that they thought the emergency was somewhere between 300 and 1000 years away and yet both these figures are worldwide famous professors. The only reason they're not releasing their names is because I consider, even though it wasn't mentioned, that our Zoom talks were confidential. The talks revolved around me having a discussion with them against their views on climate change, me on one side and the two professors on the other and to do this in a major venue in London. The talks broke down because not only was it two against one, which I could quite accept, but because they also wanted to be the arbitrator, the controller of the discussion with one of them controlling it and I thought, you know, wrong. The main concern was I couldn't be allowed to put anything up that challenged what their version of climate change was, which made the whole point of the discussion meaningless. We now live in a world where this subject cannot be openly discussed. We are called climate deniers, almost like Holocaust deniers, almost like Flat Earthers, etc., which is absolutely absurd. Science demands free speech, demands critical examination, because without it, it is not science.