It seems that he first objects to you "Beating your wife", which is "fake news" from a typical liberal. IMO We should send the police to his house to check on his wife. "Accusers" usually blame anyone but themselves. They point their one finger forward, while holding the other 3 with their thumb, and then forget about where the other 3 are pointing. Maybe he should "indicate" you with evidence, instead of being a blatant "accuser" without evidence?
It also seems to me that he is stating that ALARMIST climate scientists are using grant $$$ to try and figure out if CO2 warming is currently 1C, 2C, or worse, when they clearly don't understand "climate sensitivity to raised CO2 levels".
Climate projections of future temperature trends from the UNIPCC started diverging from reality many years ago, because they didn't understand climate sensitivity to CO2. Divergence from modeling continues to plague the UNIPCC, and they continue to base their scientific ideology on a 150-year theory from Arrhenius. They have no clue in figuring a way of fitting in their (Arrhenius') calculations into their climate modeling. Divergence is always a problem. They simply give the answer and work backwards with assumptive dividers, multipliers, subtractions, and additions. Just about every indicator they use has large caveats.
For example : Measuring outgoing radiation is extremely problematic in attribution. There are mixed temperature measurements in measuring the sun cycles (Malankovic Cycles). Mixed measurements in measuring large and substantive volcanic eruptions over time. The 1991 Mt Pinatubo eruption was a huge headache for climate scientists in attributing causal temperature calculations. Deep ocean upwelling to the surface is still a mystery, especially calculating where the deep-ocean heat came from in the first place. Earth's electromagnetic flux changes have a huge effect unknowingly. and on, and on, and on, and on, ........ . Oh! I forgot one of the most important caveats : "Water vapor changes and calculating their overall effect on temperature changes" is still in discussion.
Whether it is warming or not isn't the problem with climate scientists. They need to do a better job with understanding climate sensitivity to all formulas before they shove their "0.012% overall atmospheric change over 350+ years" (CO2 change) conclusions down the throats of 7.3 billion people.