how credible is this ipcc report?have had two instances. 2007, the reports claim the himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035. this was found to be false. in 2010, they make claims about rapid global warming that were found of useless double data, so why is this report any more credible than those? >> i think also those reports are very credible. that was the himalayan glacier question that was wrongly cited actually by some of the authors. the ipcc is basically the best available summary of all the climate science we have. for this report, 6000 papers, peer-reviewed papers, academic papers, and they tried to compile with thoususands of scientntists across the world a summary of what is the current state of climate change. and i think from past problems, they learned to be stronger on quality control, so i think this is an extremely credible report. phil: the warning has gone out. we will see if the world listens. thank you. >> you're welcome. phil: let's take a look now at some of the other stories making news arou

the ipcc has warned of two possible futures for our planet.gree world there's severe drought, more flooding in the northern hemisphere, people are poorer and have less food, and all the coral in our seas has gone. as things stand, that is the world we are heading towards, the scientists are warning. one of the clear messages of this report is that inevitably, at the rate we are going, it is quite likely we will release too much carbon, burn more carbon than we can afford to burn if we are going to stabilise temperatures at 1.5 degrees, so we have to work out how to get rid of carbon dioxide withoutjust dumping it in the atmosphere. to avoid damaging global warming, the scientists are calling for much more renewable energy. the development of transport that uses less fuel, and new ways to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. all of that is happening, but not, according to the ipcc, at the speed it needs to. the scientists are saying to everybody we have to accelerate our action to tackle climate change, because if we don't, by the middle

. >> well, the ipcc as it's called is the intergovernmental panel on climate change.s trying to tell you something there, it wants the governments of the world to have a unified view, and therefore a unified policy on climate change. that's what it was there for. now, i was asked to write a small portion of second report. i've reviewed the other ones and people said well, why did you work for ipcc, the garden parties there were a few skunks, the skunks dropped out because they were disgusted with it. we got our two cents in, and as you know, it's simply run away with the issue, and all these documents that are produced like the ipcc documents, the u.s. national assessment on climate change, they're summaries of scientific literature. now the problem is the scientific literature, itself, has to be biased, because we are working, we are funding the hypothesis that climate change is this horrible thing, have all the horrible effects and you don't get your grant renewed unless you publish and so that literature that you summarize is biased in a given direction. that's how

the ipcc has warned of two possible futures for our planet.n the two degree world, there is severe drought, there's more flooding in the northern hemisphere, people are poorer and have less food, and all the coral in our seas has gone. as things stand, that's the world we are heading towards, the scientists warn. one of the very clear messages of this report is that, inevitably, at the rate we're going, it's quite likely we are going to release too much carbon, burn more carbon than we can afford to burn if we are going to stabilise temperatures at 1.5 degrees, so we are going to have to work out how to get rid of carbon dioxide without just dumping it in the atmosphere. to avoid damaging global warming, the scientists call for much more renewable energy. the development of transport that uses less fuel, and new ways to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. all that is happening, but not, according to the ipcc, at the speed it needs to. the scientists are saying to everybody, we have to accelerate our action to tackle climate change, beca

the ipcc has warned of two possible futures for our planet.e two degree world there is severe drought, more flooding in the northern hemisphere, people are poorer and have less food, and all the coral in our seas has gone. as things stand, that is the world we are heading towards, the scientists are heading towards, the scientists are warning. one of the clear m essa 9 es are warning. one of the clear m essa g es of are warning. one of the clear messages of this report is that inevitably, at the rate we are going, it is quite likely we will release too much carbon, burn more carbon than we can afford to burn if we are going to stabilise temperatures at 1.5 degrees so we have to work out how to get rid of carbon dioxide. to avoid damaging global warming, the scientists are calling for much more renewable energy. the development of transport that uses less fuel, and new ways to ta ke that uses less fuel, and new ways to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. all of that is happening, but not, according to the ipcc, at the speed it needs to.

to produce they asked us at the ipcc to produce the report on the implications.t is really what we have done. in terms of reducing emissions, there isa terms of reducing emissions, there is a clear message, we need to start working very hard right from now if we are not going to see the options slip away. the bold number is we need to see carbon dioxide emissions reducing by 45% by 2030, compared to recent levels, if we are going to put ourselves on track. by the middle of the century we need to ta ke middle of the century we need to take as much carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere as we put in. really these are dramatic changes that need these are dramatic changes that need the deployment of new technologies, new approaches and changes in behaviour. the message is indeed are very strong. you talk about the need to reduce carbon emissions by 45%. given, for example, president trump's decision to pull out of the international climate change agreement, how great is the gulf between where the globe is heading at the moment and where it needs to be if it is to reduc

this is a scientists meets policy plays, the ipcc, and it is not just meets policy plays, the ipcc, andes like the uk are not immune. we could see more flooding, we could see more intense and frequent extreme weather events, storms etc. so everybody is going to see that difference. you described keeping the rise to 1.5 celsius as needing rapid, far reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society. is it doable? we have been very careful not to answer that question precisely. what we have done is identify different conditions that need to be met if 1.5 degrees warming was going to be achieved. some of them are very simple things. we have concluded very firmly that it can be done within the laws of physics and chemistry. we have also identified what is technologically possible, if we have the technology to do it. the last conditions relate to do it. the last conditions relate to things like political will and institutions and in a way that is not for scientists to answer the question. the answer to that question. the answer to that question lies with the audience for that repo

the ipcc has warned of two possible futures for our planet.here is severe drought. there is more flooding in the northern hemisphere. people are poorer and have less food. all of the coral in our seas has gone. as things stand, that is the world that we heading towards, scientists warn. one of the very clear messages of this report is that inevitably, at the rate that we are going, it is quite likely that we are going to release too much carbon, burn more carbon than we can afford to burn. if we are going to stabilise temperatures, we are going to have to work out how to get rid of carbon dioxide without just dumping it in the atmosphere. to avoid damaging global warming, the scientists call for much more renewable energy. the development of transport that uses less fuel. and new ways to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. all of that is happening, but not, according to the ipcc, at the speed it needs to. scientists are saying to everybody that we have to accelerate our action to tackle climate change, because if we don't, by the middle

for example, the ipcc special report on1.5 for example, the ipcc special report on 1.5 degrees for example toi.5 ortwo we tackle climate change and keep warming to 1.5 or two degrees, sea—level rises will happen more slowly and we have more time to adapt and build for these scenarios and the fixes we need. also worth remembering that is from preindustrial times, we have already warmed up by1 degrees. i wonder, as a young person, what you would like to see happening in the part of the world in which you live. you are near plymouth. do you think people would want to be moved away from the coastline? do you think that is a cce pta ble coastline? do you think that is acceptable to people living there at all would it upset them? acceptable to people living there at all would it upset them7|j acceptable to people living there at all would it upset them? i think it would upset people because they are happy where they are and they are enjoying their life but obviously they might have to move because i don't think they want to go through that hassle of having a flood and it impacting their lives. p

the ipcc which shared the nobel peaceze pthey only work from published paper. some of thes papom my group and others were utilized as imput with the rapid effects happening day by dayom of the more recent results are more scary. they have beeny conservative design. they paint a very bleak piure. the chances of wildfires, sustained droughts, huge impacts on food production go up dramatically for every degree. to aim for 1.5 would avoid billions if not trillions of dollars of damage. >> it has toi do the prediction that if the atmosphere warms up by 2.7 degrees fahrenheit we will sta experiencing the devastating effects that you just mentioned. how close are we to hitting that mark? >> sadly, we are alrea close. we already d warmed by 1grees fahrenheit. we have very little head room le . with this report it really highlights how much easiere'll make our jobs if we can keep it under this 1.5 degree celsius target, not going to two degrees celsius. >> this report lays out a number of strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emission emissio they want to see it go from 4

to assess the feasibility of keeping the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees, scientists from the ipcc are limit. we can expect to see more extreme weather... the study will say that unless rapid action is taken, the world will sail past this target by 2040. the authors say that every possible option to control emissions must be considered. the thing with climate change is, you don't always necessarily fall off a cliff at a particular level of warming. but the warmer it gets globally, frankly the worse it gets and we need to remember that every little extra we can do in terms of reducing emissions will bring benefits. global carbon output will need to peak by 2020, renewable energy will have to increase rapidly. even if these steps are taken, the report will likely recommend the controversial use of machines to suck carbon out of the atmosphere. many critics think it's a mistake to rely on expensive and untested technology. but first the scientists will have to convince government representatives from all over the world that their report makes sense. there are concerns that countries highl

he said the ipcc report was the most critical and controversial for many years.ainly not held back in their language. they are talking here about unprecedented changes in society are needed to essentially keep temperatures to 1.5 degrees this century. they have looked at this particular figure for the last three years, and the reportjust published in the hall behind me here has talked about the fact that, really, if we were to keep temperatures to 1.5 degrees, over two, there are many benefits for society. millions of people face less danger from sea level rise at 1.5 degrees of warming than two degrees. so they‘re talking about things like coral reefs, a whole range of animals and plants. so they say there are many benefits to doing this. but doing this will be an incredible challenge for the world, and they have been laying out today the details of that challenge. and they are basically saying that the two degrees target that lots of us will be familiar with, which was agreed back in 2015, is now not even enough, so that changes to 1.5. i think people will foll

the design of the new european this we actually tells a story of the incredibly alarming and serious ipccte change in 12 years, but the piece i have written is about looking at the sort of prism of brexit and that the uk are perhaps less quick to tackle climate change because we will be leaving the european emissions trading scheme, we will not have access to the europeanjustice courts we will not have access to the european justice courts for climate change issues. it is not to say that the two things are conflated, but it isjust something to the two things are conflated, but it is just something to consider. the two things are conflated, but it isjust something to consider. i think that the climate change issue is so serious and it is so close with this 12 year deadline, that it is almost, we have two take cognizance of the fact that climate change is there as we go through the brexit negotiations stop weight ok, it let'sjust look brexit negotiations stop weight ok, it let's just look at one more story here, which is the story on the front page of the times. the third of under 25 is now

. >> you mentioned future rick and the ipcc report. i want to play you. that report coming out earlier this week. very dire picture, huge in amount of scientific data marshalled to look at what the effect might be, the white house rather dismissive of it. this is an exchange at the state department. take a listen. >> that report that they produced and its content that remains the responsible of its authors. government do not formally enforce specific findings presented by the authors. there are inherent limitations of trying to assess projd impact and costs can of warming at a specific temperature and time period. >> know there's a hurricane that is smashing into the florida panhandle right now that a lot of people say was exacerbated by climate change. the arctic ice is melting at record place. you're not sure? if you're not building climate risk into every part of the organizationing. > when we worked with president trump, he said the debate about climate change is over. we've got to start talking about adaptation. we tried to increase the federal flood

the ipcc says the world must invest $2.4 trillion into clean energy every year, every year through 2035d could the use by 2050fired power to avoid catastrophic damage from climate change. the atmosphere is already one degrees celsius warmer than it was at the start of the industrial revolution, in the report predicts it will rise by three degrees by 2100. and that is double the pace targeted in the 2015 paris accord. so will technology be able to help save the planet? to discuss we are joined by our editor in new york and in the studio we have emily, an expert in climate adaptation and founder of 427, a provider of market intelligence on climate change. eric, set the stage for us. walk us through the numbers. is such a price tag achievable? eric: we will see. this is the report that was commissioned by the u.n. two years ago and it does not deliver great news. timelinets a strict that we have to reduce global emissions before 2030. they suggest that on something of the order of 55% or 60% cuts in global emissions below last year's levels by 2030, then zeroing out emissions by 2050. that

can play when it comes to trying to resolve what is clearly one of man kind's biggest challenges >> ipcc report is a very important report put together with distinguished scientists and is provided here significant amount of input. the main message i see but i read in this report is if we are not able to make immediate you turns in our mission tro jekt try, but i am going to announce today in the 2018, this year, we are going to see global emissions increasing once again. 17% increase, 18 increase. on one hand the scientists tell us the urgent decline of the emissions but we are seeing in the real life, in the markets an increase of the emissions in a significant amount so we will get the first nine months of energy data are expected 2018 we see a record high of c o2 emissions globally and bioenergy can, of course, play a very important role in the future to reduce these emissions but as it stands now, the direction is not towards paris, direction is towards -- away from paris. >> thank you very much for your time the executive director of the international energy agency talking to us fr

in washington it would start at $15 per ton of carbon, ipcc noted this week that you need carbon $5,500hing to reduce climate change. [laughter] >> another redistribution mechanism for -- >> predictability of hurricane season, raising rate on first-class to about 55 cents, the idea it's going to make them more competitive, i think the big question is if they can ever be minimum competent anymore. nobody deserves to be privatized. paul: thank you, dan, thank you all, thanks for all of you for watching, i'm pbr pbr paul gigoe hope to see you next week the board. president trump reasserting the wide springs investors are facing as more to do with policy coming from the federal reserve than any

allows not to replace it with bike solutions to be honest about that and some may have seen the latest ipcc report calling for like traffic action because we're facing, their words, cataclysmic, climate change and the board can do away with them altogether and that concludes my presentation. i want to thank you from the supervisors office and my colleagues in planning and we also have our colleague who has been a founding member here to answer any of your questions. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner: any public comment? mr. radulic? >> good afternoon, commissioners. we just wanted to thank supervisor kim and paul and james. the city staff who have been working with us, advocates on this. it's kind of a long-term transportation advocate i find myself in a quandary because i believe in sustainable transportation and development and it makes transportation problems in the city that were bad worse, i think the legislation will help resource -- reverse that. we told communities as the development process goes on your neighborhood will get more walkable and safer and greener. the street sca

in washington it would start at $15 per ton of carbon, ipcc noted this week that you need carbon $5,500reduce climate change. [laughter] >> another redistribution mechanism for -- >> predictability of hurricane season, raising rate on first-class to about 55 cents, the idea it's going to make them more competitive, i think the big question is if they can ever be minimum competent anymore. nobody deserves to be privatized. paul: thank you, dan, thank you all, thanks for all of you for watching, i'm pbr pbr paul gigoe arthel: we begin with a fox news alert of the possible new shakeup in the white house. president trump hinting at the possibility saying he is sure more people will be leaving the administration but many others are quote - on standby who he says would be great. hello everyone welcome to brandon our inside "america's news headquarters". i am arthel neville. eric: i am eric shawn. the president also weighing-in a defense secretary james mattis possibly leaving the administration. he said, at some point everyo

in washington it would start at $15 per ton of carbon, ipcc noted this week that you need carbon $5,500 to reduce climate change. [laughter] >> another redistribution mechanism for -- >> predictability of hurricane season, raising rate on first-class to about 55 cents, the idea it's going to make them more competitive, i think the big question is if they can ever be minimum competent anymore. nobody deserves to be privatized. paul: thank you, dan, thank you all, thanks for all of you for watching, i'm pbr pbr paul gigoe >> from the fox studios in new york city, this is maria bartiromo's "wall street." maria: happy weekend. welcome to the program that analyzes the week that was and helps position you for the week ahead. i'm maria bartiromo, and what a week it was for the markets. in just a moment, i am speaking with blackrock's rick reiter here to talk about the outhook of what -- outlook of what we see in stocks after the dow industrials lost 5.25% over a two-day period. we will talk with rick coming up. then later, stacey cunningham is the president of the new york stock exchange,

the ipcc noted that you would need a carbon tax of 5 you $5,5o do anything to reduce climate change. just another redistribution mechanism for our electric car subsidies, et cetera. paul: dan? >> i give my miss to the postal service with the predictability of fall hurricane season is raising the rate on first class stamps to 55-cents. i think the question is if they can ever been minimally competent anymore. paul: thank you all. that's it for this week's show. thanks to all of you for watching. i'm pauwe hope to see you righte next week. >>> arthel: president trump meeting with american pastor andrew brunson just one day after his release from detention in turkey. the pastor spent two years in captivity in turkey in jail and under house arrest. this could potentially ease tensions between the u.s. and turkey as another diplomatic dust-up is taking shape. the president is issuing concerns and warning of sorts to saudi arabia over the disappearance of a washington post columnist. hello, welcome to a brand-new hour inside america's news headquarters many i'm arr

in the report it talks about 2.7-degree fahrenheit threshold and the ipcc says we are going do reachntury so we have to take action now if we are to stem the worst impacts of climate change. what does that mean? it means reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 45% by 2030. that's huge. and the only way it says to get there to do that is to increase the amount of renewables that we use. take those renewables and ratchet them up to 65%, 75% of the power generation and get our coal use down to just about zero because, of course, coal emits when you burn coal for power that creates greenhouse gases which warm the earth so it's a big, big ask of the world's politicians. they say it's scientifically possible. the question is, is the political will there? >> certainly not from this white house. >> no. >> because they have gone exactly in the opposite direction. ann thompson, thank you so much. and that does it for us for this edition of "andrea mitchell reports." chuck todd tonight here in washington. i'll be there presenting three films and here's steve kornacki in for "velshi & ruhle." >> go

. >> i think this report is really a good report from ipcc, the intergovernmental panel on climate changeior reports do not always convey the urgency of the issue. and really, make it very clear to the public. but this one i think did a very good job. both in warning about the consequences if we don't do something and and making clear that we still can do something, but we have to be in dish again very quickly to actually phase down emissions while in fact emissions will continue to climb if we don't have some significant policy changes. amy: i don't know if you're getting a chance to see the climate coverage of the meteorologist, reporters down in the panhandle warning people must leave, evacuate, of course, the politicians as well. but there is almost no mention of climate change. can you talk about that connection, the intensification of these hurricanes? >> sure. if you look at the temperatures gulf andean, in the off the east coast of the united states, they are way above normal. knows, i, as everyone think even the public understands, if the ocean is warmer, that provides the fuel f

amy: you have criticized the ipcc for constraining its policy advice to fit neatly within the currentconomic model. can you explain? for some to have a landmark report like this is simply critical because we live in a country in the united states where the president proudly denies climate change is the .alls it a chinese hoax so to have any kind of report like this, butut you are crititf the report in some respect. >> it is a really good report and trying to determine the impacts between the warming. when it comes and what we have to do about it, again, a rent scared of being very honest. given it has a scientific role is tohink the tell it like it is, not to color it or sweeten the pill to make it more attractive. my comments here are -- it is not just this report. when it comes to what we have to do about this, we run scared. we don't want to scare the politicians or t the public. we don't want to move away from or the energy systems we have today, so we tried to have incremental changes. when you really look at the numbers behind the report, look at the numbers that science comes o

the landmark report by the intergovernmental panel on climate change -- the ipcc -- warns dramatic action is needed over the next 12 years to hold global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees celsius, or 2.7 degrees fahrenheit, beyond which global crises could unfold at a rapid pace. the report comes as governor rick scott has declared a state of emergency in florida, as forecasters predict tropical storm michael could strengthen to become a major hurricane as it makes landfall late wednesday. in indonesia, the death toll from last month's massive earthquake and tsunami has risen toto more thanan 1900, with some 6060,000 people displaced aftetn 18-foot wallll of water swswept mimiles into the island of sulawesi. authorities warn some 5000 people remain missing, many of them likely swept out to sea or trapped amid rubble that could take months or years to clear. in haiti, at least 12 people died and nearly 200 were injured after a 5.9-magnitude quake struck saturday evening in the country's northwest. many of the injuries came as unsafe cinderblock homes and structures collapsed on residents.

cares the most about this issue, which makes a certain amount of sense, because when you read the ipcc report, it sort of scans that people that are 60 may not care as much about 2040 and 2050 as people that are 25. >> well, let me just say, chris, anybody who is decent, anybody who has kids, anybody who has grandkids, anybody who cares about other human beings in the world, when they see a big threat to the world and know we can solve it, they go, they run towards the fire to solve it. anybody who looks at their pocketbook and says what am i going to make this year, and to heck with everybody else should be ashamed of themselves. >> all right. tom steyer of nexgen climate. thanks for taking some time to join us tonight. >> okay, chris. thanks for having me. >> that is "all in" for this evening. >>> good evening from new york

to assess the feasibility of keeping the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees, scientists from the ipcc areore extreme weather... the study will say that unless rapid action is taken, the world will sail past this target by 2040. the authors say that every possible option to control emissions must be considered. the thing with climate change is, you don't always necessarily fall off a cliff at a particular level of warming. but the warmer it gets globally, frankly the worse it gets and we need to remember that every little extra we can do in terms of reducing emissions will bring benefits. global carbon output will need to peak by 2020, renewable energy will have to increase rapidly. even if these steps are taken, the report will likely recommend the controversial use of machines to suck carbon out of the atmosphere. many critics think it's a mistake to rely on expensive and untested technology. but first, the scientists will have to convince government representatives from all over the world that their report makes sense. there are concerns that countries highly reliant on fossil fuels, su

it's been produced by the intergovernmental panel on climate change (ipcc), and will advise all governmentslate 1800s and early 1900s, after the industrial revolution, temperatures remained steady. but in the 20th century, through the 19705 and ‘80s, things began to get hotter. you can see the global temp on the left here. the last four years have already moved 1.2c. just in the last four years, we have seen significant move on. matt mcgrath has more. we have always looked at two celsius at the limit, which was agreed in paris, but recently, more scientific papers have looked at this 1.5, has said that the difference between 1.5 and two doesn't seem like much, but it can be the difference between thousands of homes being flooded and thousands of homes being flooded and thousands of homes being flooded and thousands of species suffering. if you look at the measures agreed to in paris, we're looking at warming this essentially for around 3.5 celsius. the only safe limit for most countries around the world will be1.5. most countries around the world will be 1.5. other scientists say, we think

. >> you mentioned future risk and the ipcc report. i want to play you a bit of sound in the state department, the report coming out earlier this week, very dire picture, huge amount of scientific data to look at what kind of window we have, the effects that might be. this is the exchange at the state department. i want to get your reaction to it. >> that report that they produced, and its contents, that remains the responsibility of its authors. governments do not formally endorse specific findings presented by the authors. . there are inherent limitations of trying to assess projected impacts and costs of warming at a specific temperature and time period. >> you know that there's a hurricane that is smashing into the florida panhandle right now that a lot of people say were -- was exacerbated by climate change? the ice -- the arctic ice is melting, antarctic ice is melting at record paces and you're not sure? >> my question to you is can you run an effective fema in the 21st century if you are not building climate risk into every par

i think the ipcc report that is shortly coming out, is going to set out, i am sure, how we can achieve say, we're not even close to achieving that now. in other words, are burning fossil fuels continues and greenhouse gases are still increasing. they are not decreasing. 2015 was the paris agreement.“ increasing. they are not decreasing. 2015 was the paris agreement. if we are not even close, that is because ofa are not even close, that is because of a lack of political will, public inertia, what are the reasons? political will has evaporated since paris, as if making the agreement was enough. yes, the public as well. i think other issues have raised their heads and in this country, brexit, perhaps. it is such a serious issue, i am going to say what we do over the next ten years to prepare for this crisis, is going to prepare for this crisis, is going to determine the future of humanity for the next 10,000 years. we are talking about crisis time. as if there was a near earth object that was going to slam into the planet in ten years. if we had that warning, i think we would all start do

to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees celsius, the ipcc tells us we need renewables to grow to about half the world's energy mix by 2030 and to perhaps 80% of the world's energy mix by midcentury. coal in the global electricity mix needs to be mostly phased out by 2050. now the fossil fuel industry's front groups, of which there is a considerable legion, tell us that this will raise costs on consumers. but renewables are now beating fossil fuel power on cost, and renewable costs are still falling. in a recent report on global energy trends, deloitte notes, i quote here, solar and wind power recently crossed a new threshold. already among the cheapest energy sources globally, solar and wind have much further to go. end quote. the deloitte report shows the top solar states here in yellow, and the top wind states here in blue. and these two -- texas and california -- are in green because they're leaders in both wind and solar. if you look at the top 20 u.s. solar and wind states, three-quarters of those states have electricity prices below the national average. so clearly renewables don

the ipcc report this month was clearly on the consequences.years ago, it was a labour government that passed the climate change act. world leading legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissionings by 80% by 2050. this government is not each on target to do that. clean energy investment fell 56% last year and the uk produces less of energy from renewa bles produces less of energy from renewables than germany, spain, france or italy. this government is, i believe mr deputy speaker, failing to protect our environment, and in doing so failing to protect all of our futures. the extra 500 million announced today, to help the government cope with brexit, is not about planning, but about panic. and that panic is very deep—rooted. yesterday, the chancellor said another budget would be necessary to set out a new economic strategy, in the event of a no—deal brexit. there morning the prime minister said all the spending commitments are funded irrespective of a deal. it is very clear, mr speaker, if they can't agree a good deal with the eu, it is because t

of this, and if that wasn't clear before, it should be clear after this most recent report from the ipcc. so ten to one spending on that. what are the tactics that are used? because after my peppy talk, and now my depressing talk, i am going to be controversial. so i want to rush through the depressing part, since we've had so much of that today. the subtle underground sabotage of these agencies, which has persisted for the last 20 years, and it disappoints me to say, because he probably was the best president in my lifetime, i wasn't alive for franklin roosevelt, and i can't forgive lyndon johnson for vietnam. i just can't bring myself to do it. i try. we had barack obama who ignored government. he did not defend his government. he did not articulate to people why the government was playing a very important role in their lives. and this was in retrospect, as we take an objective look at his legacy, really was the most disappointing in some ways, things he did. he did not educate people about why they needed protection, and why you all these laws were so important. and what ended up happ