how is this comparable to neville chamberlain's appeasement of hitler? how is that an appropriate comparison? >> it is an appropriate comparison because it was a treaty that was not going to do any good. this treaty also will not do any good. anyone who looks at the results of doing what the treaty says can see that the effect on the earth's climate is -- even if you take the alarmist computer models, trivial. it will not make any difference and yet it will cause enormous harm to many people. >> i hear your point there but i don't know that that the references there ever serve us well. >> i want to give may the last word here. wrap up for us your feelings based on what you've heard thus far this morning. >> i think it speaks for myself. we've got a movement that's trying to move the world forward to protect our communities from climate change and we've got a conversation that's stuck in the past. if you want to be part of this movement we welcome you, and the only people who are trying to keep us in this outdated conversation is the fossil fuel industry

promise of the territory none of the great powers from germany or austria the great powers led by neville chamberlain and in december december 1939 the red army joined them going forward. said germany was supplied with food and fuel from the spring of 1940 they were evacuated from the continent and when churchill became prime minister great britain was alone with no important ally is not the germany in the soviet allies that had invaded finland beginning with the bombing of helsinki the soviet union occupied lithuania adolf hitler indeed imagined a division of the world expected churchill to come to terms after the fall of france he told the french would of been need to do we shall fight for ever and ever in june told the british parliament began the bombing of the british cities totaled later called the air campaign of which i have the honor to express to help the of british define themselves brother politicians would turn this opinions into for property for