>> companies claim their $99 dna tests can tell you everything

from where your ancestors came from to potential health concerns. but consider this, why is the government telling the maker of the home made dna kits to stop marketing? kitty kelly looks back on her 30 years of writing unauthorized biographies. ings amazon.com, why doant it turn a huge profit? the government has gotten involved telling the leading company in direct to consumer in home dna testing to suspend all marketing and advertising efforts. is this a case of consumer protection or yet another instance of government overregulating a new industry? ronald bailey, correspondent for are reason magazine. and stanford

law professor hank gre greeley. 23 and me is the most successful dna company, they look at over 200 diseases and conditions. it markets itself as the first step in the prevention and mitigation of a series of these diseases. so the question is why is the fda telling them not to market this product? >> well by marketing themselves as the first step in prevention of mitigation of -- disease, this they are a medical device. medical devices are regulated. we want to make sure they're accurate, that they do a good job and they're also regulated because we want to make sure that the people using them are going to understand the results and act on them appropriately. those are two concerns that i

think the fda legitimately has with 23 and me. >> the fda says the company hasn't proven the devices to be accurate or reliable enough to get their approval at least not yet. ron what do you say about that? what kind of accuracy have these kits had? >> first of all, hank is right. the fda does have the jurisdiction over these devices but would i suggest they are moving a little hand fistedly, locking down the hammer two quickly. there's one way to do it, one is analytic accuracy, would you get the same results? in that regard they're extremely accurate. the particular biochip that the company uses is by the company illumina, validated time and time again. another is called clinical validity.

where the fda is more concerned. basically, when the company he says that you have this particular -- says you have this particular result does it mean anything in regard to your health for sure, is there anything you can do about it? and the answer is in most cases no. but this is as i say the first citizen in an pon going process of developing person genomic medicine over time. it is just a process, a way for us to learn and i think fda is process. >> it is a new way of looking at health and predicting the future. and hank, the fda says, in its warning letter to 23 and me, a result may be used by a patient to self-manage. serious concerns are raised if test results are not adequately understood by patients or incorrect test results were reported. they bring up the

bracca gene, somebody may get a mastectomy or get treatments they don't need or if there's a false prove. somebody shouldn't get a mastectomy by not checking with a doctor would they? >> well it's a big country. i wouldn't say never. what about a b rc 1 or 2 mutation, i'm not at high risk of breast cancer, thank god i don't have to get those mammograms rmammograms anymore. well, if you've got a mutation it's more like 80%. if you don't have the mutation it goes down to 11.79%. without somebody to explain what this means? me know americans are not very good with percentages because the lotteries are failure irk, the possibility for danger is

real. i think it's a combination of the clinical validity being really absent in this stuff and the absence of a trained intermediary. that's what makes this worry worrisome. >> i see ron is headaching his head, go ahead ron. >> if you look at the breast cancer page that they offer at 23 and me, they are extremely careful to explain these risks. we should point out with regard to false negative testing, this was, frequent the test for hiv virus basically it has a 1 in 12 false positive rate, false negative rate i confused that. which suggests then there are limits to all these tests anyway

and people who for example test negative for hiv and they in fact have it are likely to harm other people as well yet the fda allow that to go forward as a test. i suggest to you that the false negative rate for the test that's being offered by 23 and me is considerably lower than the orquick false negative rates -- false positive rates. >> hermella. >> are a viewer says the fda is overstepping its authority here. it's a matter of caf yet emor caveat emptor. >> 23 and me should require, you go through a medical professional, the same as you get an mri scan of your brain. it hasn't worked very well in the health world, we've got quacks, we've had patent

medicines, that's why we regulate health in this country much more seriously than we regulate anything else. because it's important to people, it's confusing, it's complicated and they need help. and putting it on a web page so people can read it frankly isn't necessarily a guarantee that anybody is going oread it or if they read it, understand it. >> ron, have the half million customers being served by 23 and me already, have they reported 9/11 harmed by the results? >> i've been looking around to see examples but i haven't found any. half a million people somebody would complain about something problem. as far as i can tell there have been no complaints lodged with the fda at all for these particular tests. and i would suggest one of the things the fda might want to do instead of closing down the company which they might do in the next two weeks if they don't like the answer they

get, call some customers like me and find out what our experiences have been and see if we have any complaints or confusions and move from there. >> go ahead. >> i would say alternatively -- >> let me interrupt you. they released a statement in response to the fda letter and the company said we received the letter from the food and drug administration, we have not received time line and communication regarding our submission. our relationship with the fda is extremely important to us and we are committed to fully engaging with them to address their concerns. but in the letter from the fda, the fda says despite numerous meetings e-mails and numerous correspondence, the fda has not received any communication from 23 and me since may. so hank is 23 and me acting in good faith or what's going on? >> you'd have to ask them and

answer. i don't know what's going on with them. it's sort of like having a police officer turn his lights on behind you and you keep driving for six months. it doesn't really make sense that they haven't communicated with fda and not only haven't they communicated with fda they started a big new advertising campaign as well. something doesn't add up here and i'm not sure what's going on. >> the fda says they aren't against the item of direct to consumer dna testing, they've worked extensively with 23 and me to get this done. why isn't 23 and me able to go ahead full tilt with what they wanted to do? >> i agree that the company has made a major misstep, they is had are have kept in touch with fda. but congress should consider loosening up these regulations, these are low level devices, such.

there is very little evidence that people are using these in ways that harm themselves and i think it might be a good idea, to revisit the regulations over time. >> where do you see the industry going, ron? >> i think that we're just at the very beginning of a golden age of new biomolecular medicine essentially that these tests are going to help patients and doctors and physicians and technologists, help people over very specific periods of time. butt 23 and me has had several projects to gather data from their clients and use it later to figure out how other interventions in medicine might take place to improve their health but again it's very early days. so i see in 20 years, let's say, a complete transformation of medicine and where we have very specific treatments for people

with very few side effects. >> hank do you agree? it's been reported that 23 and me was beginning a drive to sign up a million new clients cay. do you think they'll get the fda approval of approval and this will be a thriving company in time? >> the 23 and me technology really is obsolete. we are moving on to whole genome sequencing technologies. those are already being used clinically, they're getting cheaper and cheaper. that is going to substantially affect health care, we need to do it in a safe and responsible way. >> gentlemen thanks very much. and you can get those test kits, still. they still are being sold and it's just a question of marketing at the moment. coming up, we'll talk to a survivor of

childhood sexual assault. and our social media producer, hermella aregawi. what's trending hermella? >> they are living in tents, soon they might be kicked out of there too. i'll tell you more coming up. twitter @aj consider this and on our google plus and facebook pages. an america tonight special report. as states try to save money, are prisoners paying the price? >> what are you talking about, he's dead. >> an exclusive investigation into prison health care.

>> childhood sexual assault is approaching ep demic proportions. the american psychological association reports one in six boys and one in four girls are sexually abused before they turn 18. the perpetrators are often relatives including immediate and extended family members and most often the attackers are male.

the child has often forced silence which leads to mental trauma. the book an unimaginable act, chronicles one brave young woman's story and her fight to help are victims. erin marin, i know you were abused when you were six years old by the uncle of one of your best friends and a few years later by one of your cousins and the abuse went open for years before you were able to say something. despite all the pain you went through, why couldn't you talk about it, why couldn't you tell your family? >> i didn't speak up because as a child i was always told, this is our little secret, no one will believe you, i know where you live, i'll come hurt you, so i kept it a secret. where i didn't believe you will be believed and you will keep this a secret. >> you said you spent hundreds of hours with

school psychologists and social workers,. >> they often just say the kid's going through a phase. she'll outgrow it and that's what they did with me. they said i was going through a phase, i would outgrow it and unfortunately didn't ask those important questions. >> and it took you years to speak out. if it hadn't been for a conversation with one of your sisters you might never have spoken out. >> exactly. i often wonder if i would have. because i was only getting the message, this is our secret, no one will believe you, it took me learning that my sister was also being abused by this same family member, it made me believe, two against one, they'll have to believe us. >> tell us what erin's law is?

>> age appropriate where education, on age appropriate child abuse prevention. teaching kids to speak up, if they're being sexually abused on safe touch unsafe touch. safe secrets, unsafe secrets. giving children the message, the parts of your body that are covered by a bathing suit, if you are ever touched there, kids get this message, and this message only, this is our secret, no one will believe you. >> you've gotten some success in getting these laws passed. how is that going? >> i started my campaign be in my own state of illinois. i took my mission national and i've been traveling to every state capital testifying to lawmakers and currently it's been passed in eight states with 18 more states introducing it. so currently we have half the

country and we will get every state, i'm determined to do that and after that i plan to take it international. >> you think it was a no brainer. have you gotten any resistance? >> unfortunately i have. how will they afford this? we already have the social workers and psychologists, they worked with me. instead of figuring out erin here are appropriate ways to deal with your anger, they could have educated and told. so it will cost the schools nothing. >> what do current schools get wrong about teaching kids about sexual abuse, is it that they just don't teach it at all? >> no, they don't cover it in schools at all. we cover stranger danger. 93% of the time, children are being hurt by the people they

love and trust. 7% of time it's that stranger danger. so we're basically protecting 7% of the population. the dare program, eight safe ways to say no to drugs, i knew how to run out of a burning building but i was being abused by two perpetrators, i wasn't able to speak up. >> you are getting celebrity help? >> actress juliana margulies is helping. will not lou the bill to be heard. and now i have her rallying with me to get it passed this year. >> what happened to the two people who abused you? >> the one confessed and he was given probation and the other refused to speak up and pled the fifth and because so much time had gone on, no physical

evidence, authorities told me, unless other victims come forward there's nothing they can do. >> what is the most important child? what is the most important thing that children need to know about how to behave when something like this happens to them? >> my biggest message to kids is, you will be believed. you don't keep this a secret. i don't care what you've been told, if you've been told no one will believe you, they'll come get you, they'll hurt your family, it's all lice, it's all brain washing. my goal is to get kids to understand that you will be believed, speak up. what is a safe secret? what's an unsafe jet? what's a safe touch, what's an unsafe touch? and for parents to sit down and talk with their kids about this. don't wait until it's too late. >> and what should parents watch out for if they haven't spoken to their kids, what warning signs should they be aware of? >> the warning signs are there, bed wetting or for a kid who

suddenly didn't have any problem with someone, who is sudden resistant. and then suddenly out of the blue the grades start to change, kids who wear extra layers of clothes, self-injury, night terrors, there are red flags that go up but often missed. >> the jerry sandusky case would never have happened if erin's law been in place? >> as an example had that same little boy abused in 1998, knew how to speak up and tell through this program, think of how many kids could have been saved from 1998 to 2011. jerry sandusky could have been put out of business a long time ago but unfortunately the only message that little boy back in 1998 and a dozen more after that were getting was coming from the perpetrator.

>> well, let's hope your efforts put child sex abusers out of business in big numbers. we really appreciate you joining us and best of luck in your efforts. the book is called an unimaginable act . erin marin, thank you very much. thank you. hermella. >> majority of the residents are u.s. deportees, 40% have lived in the u.s. for several years. some were degree ported for serious infractions but others were deported for things like traffic violations or having an open beer in a parking lot. according to ice of the 97,000 people deported from october of 2008 and february of 2013 about 60% were low level offenders and had never been convicted of a crime. a lot of the residents had not been able to find a job, hoping

to get back in the u.s. where they have family. the tents were set up by a local political party but that permit will expire at the end of the month. what do you think of this story? you can leave a comment @aj consider this. or on google plus or facebook. back to you toinlt. a.m. donnell.com, -- amazon.com is a huge business, why doesn't it turn a huge profit? new questions arise about global warming but how much of it is hot air? the stream is uniquely interactive television. we depend on you, >> you are one of the voices of this show. >> so join the conversation and make it your own. >> the stream. weeknights 7:30 et / 4:30 pt on al jazeera america and join the conversation online @ajamstream. determining using some sort of subjective interpretation of

their policy as to whether or not your particular report was actually abusive, because if it doesn't contain language that specifically threatens you directly or is targeted towards you specifically, they may not consider it abuse. they may consider it offensive. and in that case they just recommend that you block that person. >> i don't want to minimise this, because i mean, there's some really horrible things that are on line, and it's not - it's not just twitter, what has happened through social media and the anonymity of the net is that you see websites, hate-filled websites targetting all sorts of groups, popping up. there has been a huge number of those that exist as well. >> every sunday night al jazeera

america brings you controversial... >> both parties are owned by the corporations. >> ..entertaining >> it's fun to play with ideas. >> ...thought provoking >> get your damn education. >> ...surprising >> oh, absolutely! >> ...exclusive one-on-one interviews with the most interesting people of our time. >> you're listening because you want to see what's going to happen. >> i want to know what works what do you know works? >> conversations you won't find anywhere else. >> talk to al jazeera. >> only on al jazeera america. >> oh my! . >> ing what makes for a great biography, kitty kelly's last stories have become new york times best sellers, from oprah winfrey to the bush dynasty, departure from those, her latest book, features hundreds of images from

jfk's favorite photojournalists. she joins us from washington, d.c. kitty great to have you with us. your first major tell-all was jackie o. >> that's right. >> what led you down that road to do this kind of work and why did you choose jackie? >> absolutely fascinated by jacqueline kennedy onassis. absolutely fascinated by . there had already been 43 books written on her but i interviewed a lot of people close to the family, close to mrs. onassis, which she was at the time that i wrote it. and i really believe in writing what i call an unauthorized biography. now unauthorized does not mean untrue, it means you're doing it without the subject's cooperation or approval.

>> would you like to do it with the subject's cooperation? >> no. >> really? >> because -- >> yeah? >> because -- you give up editorial control. so if you are writing about jacqueline kennedy onassis, of course i was -- i wouldn't be able to talk about the president's womanizing, or the things that really affected their marriage. primarily not so much the womanizing although she did know about it and she tolerated it, it was the awful health problems that dogged jfk for so much of his life. i don't think anybody really realizes all the sicknesses, all the botched surgeries, all the awful diagnoses that he had. and that really was a better. and she would not have allowed that to be published because

that goes against image of this vigorous young new frontiersman. >> and you cam full circle capturing cam lot because you've gone back to the kennedys. how did she receive the book do you know? >> she being mrs. onassis has really never made a comment on any book. but she was insensed when ben bradlee wrote his memoir and she never spoke to him again. when red fay wrote a book on the president which was a really lovely book, he sent $3,000 to the kennedy library in royalties and she ripped the check up and sent it back. she was -- she could not stand to have anything even real written about the president. when manchester wrote his book she sued him. so it would be very, very hard

in a sense -- >> right. >> to get the kind of approval that you would like for a book. now, on capturing cam lot, i -- camelot, i was absolutely satellited to hear from the kennedy library, i flew to boston and i signed books they have on sale up there. another thing, i have no compunction about pushing the book because all the proceeds of it go to the d.c. public libraries. so i don't profit from this book at all except from the sheer pleasure of having done it. >> it's a pleasure to read. now, the obamas have often been compared to the kennedys. they have two young kids, celebrities love them, he is a gifted speaker. why do you see them as so different from the kennedys? >> it's a different time, it's a different era, it's a different -- it's a different everything. but on those things they're very similar.

mrs. obama as a first lady is ferocious about the protection of her two children as was jackie kennedy. she too is too fashion plate and cares very, very much about clothes and how she looks, and the image she presents, as did jackie kennedy. president obama is as gifted as kennedy was intellectually, they were both fine orators, lots of teeth, lots of prettiness. >> you have covered so much. how do you decide who you want to write about? >> i only choose people who have really left a footprint on our landscape. i choose people who are very much alive, who have influenced our culture in some way, politically or socially, and

have had ims men's power over us in that sense. -- immense power, over us in that sense. everyone i have chosen for a biography i have been i guess in awe of, a little bit, and have wanted to go behind the curtain of that public image to find out what they are really like. it was kennedy himself who said, the thing that makes biography so interesting and so fascinating the is the search to find out, what's he really like? >> going behind the curtain has made you face some serious criticism. nancy sinatra said she hoped you would get hit by a truck because of your book on her father. are any of these reactions fair? >> i think those reactions are typical . you've got to remember, these people have spent a lifetime, and millions of dollars,

building up a public image. so they don't welcome biography. biography by its very nature is invasive. you are really getting into the marrow of someone's bone and finding out what they're really like. and when it came to oprah winfrey, i think she was extremely angry that her father had given me so much time, and talked to me at length about her. and in the case of sinatra, he sued me before i'd even written a word. i mean he just sued to stop the book and scare the publisher. >> now, there have been some cases where you have been attacked about the accuracy. is there anything that you've written that you regret? >> well, first of all i don't think i have ever been attacked on the accuracy, ever. i've never lost a lawsuit in the 30 some years that i've been writing and i have been sued

probably, most famously by frank sinatra and he had to drop his lawsuit after a year. so on accuracy, i haven't been sued. on the fact that i have chosen to write what i have written has unnerved some people. >> quickly, who of all your subjects have you liked the most? >> you know something, it's not most. first of all, the book that you like the best is the book that you finish last. because you don't think you'll ever be able to produce it.

how you read newspapers, next. >> every sunday night, al jazeera america presents... gripping films from the world's top documentary directors. >> this is just the beginning of something much bigger. >> next sunday: do the math. >> these companies are a rogue force. >> one environmentalist says fossil fuels equal disaster. will his movement add up to

change? >> we will fight it together. >> al jazeera america presents: do the math.

>> chances are you get a bunch of stuff in your house that was bought on amazon.com. the online superstore sells everything from books and toys to high heeled shoes even dog food. it passed $61 billion in sales in 2012. as amazon has overtaken the online marketplace, it has pas passed others in its wake. the meteoric rise of the company and its founder. brad stone, glad to have you. really fascinating book, i saw a quote that compares bezos to henry ford, the way that forth transformed manufacturing in general, do you think that's a fair comparison? >> oh, absolutely, steve jobs being the other natural exarn comparison.

it's not just online shopping, amazon and jeff bezos has changed the way we read, with the kindle. and how companies run their businesses on amazon servers. >> he started with the books, took it to toys, all these other things out there, getting into supermarket online, you can buy your stuff and get it delivered to your house. but he also, part of his focus has really been from a corporate standpoint, on the consumer. focusing on consumer satisfaction, more than on huge profits. how has he managed to make that work? because the company really rarely has turned a significant profit. >> and the interesting thing about the amazon story is it hasn't always worked. at the beginning -- bigger. >> in the dot-com boom,

americans were fascinated but then it got pummeled. but only jeff bezos in seattle believed the e-commerce could work. and now people believe in him so much and the company so much they are willing to tolerate some of these losses. >> is it an important model, this sort of focus on consumer loyalty and growth rather than the quick quarterly profit? >> i mean i think amazon gets away with it because people believe in the founder and the vision. but you know let's also be clear. customer loyalty is -- the customer focus is one thing but they're brutal also. they take out competitors, they behave somewhat ruthlessly, they drive prices down to the consternation of manufacturers, we see that with walmart, we see what happens, manufacturers go overseas. great for customers but you know

some macroeconomic effects that need to be considered. >> he has been very tough in some negotiations and really it's an interesting history of the company. we have a social media question, let's go to hermella. >> thanks. veur jonnes, what is it like to work for bezos on a day-to-day basis? >> great question. probably very similar to how it is working for bill gates during the prime of microsoft, at apple, he is demanding excellence and punishing people. >> i met him many years ago, could not have been a nicer guy, got that famous silly laugh and that's the persona, when he has a rare occasion that he does interviews. but on a rare occasion he's a tough nut. >> that's why it's difficult to

work at amazon and why amazon is a success it is today, he is not willing to tolerate mediocrity. it is a very tough place to live, but he's created a culture of sort of adversarially friction. >> compared to most other companies of its size, it has much more turnover and it's a frugal business, that he runs it, he gives them some perks, like you can bring your dog to work, but employees vo to pay for parking, and the desks are made out of recycled materials and not fancy ones. >> the retail side, if you look at walmart and read sam walton's biography, that frugality is baked in.

jeff bezos plucked strands of dna from a lot of companies and that's one of the trends he took from walmart. >> one of the things clear in the book is there were a whole bunch of parallels both personal life and professional life between he and steve jobs. >> to what you're reaving to on the personal side, steve jobs was adopted and as part of my book i kind of explored jeff bezos earlier history and found to my surprise that not only did he have a biological father who wasn't in his life but this person had a remarkable history was in a unicycle group and weighs in a bike shop in phoenix and didn't even know his son had become a billionaire and was running this worldwide company. >> to find him, you must have

been completely shocked that this man didn't know who jeff bezos was. >> the question was, why is this important in the amazon story? i think that bezos is such a unique, driven individual just like jobs or frankly, president obama or bill clinton, and you wonder, does the absence or let's say the disappearance of the biological father, now he had a great adoptive father. but somewhere in the stew of this unique individual, that definitely had an impact. >> i know the biological father then wrote him and that he wrote back. any -- do you know whether he has any interest in meeting his biological dad? >> i actually don't know. i would assume that -- you know let's sort of go back to the steve jobs story, he didn't have a lot of interest in meeting his biological father. he said he had a great father and wasn't interested in making that connection.

i don't know what the story will be here. hopefully it will be a happy outcome. >> he revolutionized the way we buy all things. he has now bought the washington post. you know it needs some help. >> i think he has a better chance than anyone because number 1 of course he's got the resources. he paid $250 million for the paper and its net worth is immense and that's a relative drop in the bucket. he has this new orientation, a willingness to try many things. gracefully sunset the old businesses to build new ones. if i'm a reporter at the washington post i probably feel pretty good instead of living in the aiming of decline we're going to start trying some new things and really experimenting and you have an owner that's willing to stay in it for the long term. >> talking about new businesses, he spoke at the valedictory speech about his interest in

space and now he's got a rocket company. >> surprisingly, he spends a day a week running this rocket company, called blue origin. >> you're talking about selling shoes too. >> that is one of the things he does incredibly well is disperse his time across all these businesses. i kind of describe it in the book as a series of chess boards all of them oriented in such a way that he can play every single game in the most efficient way possible. like amazon customs that's what he does. >> you interviewed him a bunch of times and the last time you interviewed him i believe was when you mentioned you were going to write a book about him and about amazon. he wasn't that thrilled right? >> i actually saw him two weeks ago when he was introducing, he was launching the new kindle fire tablet. and we had spoken before then. and look, he like almost every

retail ceo he doesn't want to share his perspective because that's the competitive edge. but he saw the inevitability, because amazon is changing the way we live, in this kind of count being written. he was rooting for the book. >> although he wasn't interviewed for the book he opened a lot of doors, it wasn't as if this was a totally unauthorized thing he felt it was too early to be speak going -- >> $75 billion in sales and he believes it's too early. it shows he has kind of walmart scale ambitions for amazon. >> last question, how much trouble would you be in if you wrote a book on amazon and it didn't end up being a best seller? >> amazon customers, i would be presumptuous, to say that they wanted to hear about the company. but i'm humbled by the response

so far. >> i hope bezos will talk to you in the future after he reads it. >> thanks antonio. >> the book is the everything store, jeff bezos and the age of amazon. straight ahead, a new film pushes forward the threat of climate change, but is the book not

>> and now, a techknow minute... >> something is killing america's bee population. >> what happened to this bee? >> scientists aren't sure what but beekeepers are reporting dramatic declines of 65% this year. >> the losses are astronomical >> that could have a devistating impact on agriculture. but a collection of resarchers are working hard to build a better bee. >> i'm just gonna roll my fingers forward... >> using artificial insemination to make strains of bee populations from across the globe, >> i'm trying to enhance what mother nature does >> the hope is to find a strain that's resistant to whatever is killing america's bees. >> nobody in the world was able to freeze honey bee semen. >> for mor imformation on this and other techknow stories,

visit our website at aljazeera.com/techknow don't miss techknow sundays 7:30et / 4:30pt on al jazeera america >> the environmental protection agency just introduced new rules for rg pollution from being manufacturing plants. according to the next guest's documentary, do the math, which airs here on al jazeera america at 9:00 issue, deals with climate change.

>> as of tonight, taking on the fossil fuel industry directly. >> these companies are a rogue force. >> we are no longer at the point of trying to stop global warming. too late for that. we're trying to keep it from becoming a complete and utter calamity. >> joining us here in the studio are the directors and the producers of the documentary do mix. in the documentary as we just saw, you guys followed environmentalist bill mckibbon when he fought for change. >> we will never give up until keystone is dead and buried. >> it seems that the government is listening but is that given

some starting numbers in your documentary, a drop in the bucket? >> it is certainly a step in the right direction. there is no silver bullet about that, it's going to take silver buckshot. the president mentioned, said some pretty significant words, regarding the keystone pipeline, it's going to have to be rethought and the idea that this is going to be a forgone conclusion almost two years ago, and now that it looks like it might actually get rejected it's a big step. all the things add up, so as bill mentions in the film we need to wage this war against the fossil fuel industry. i think mitch mcconnell says this is a war, that's what bill is advocating, we need to come out and see who the real enemy is. >> your focus is on fossil fuels, i want to get to this.

but another piece of information this week that has exacerbated the debate is that arctic ice has expanded by 60% from last year to this year. what do you say to skeptics that say that really shows that we can't see consistent climate change? >> i think it's important to put that in context. 2012 was the record in terms of the greatest amount of ice that was melting. and then if you look at twean you are always -- 2013 you are going ohave regression towards the mean. where sunld you aren't going to see two record years in a row. but the large pool of data, the sample of 30 years we see reduction of up to 75% of arctic ice. you're going to see that piece of information that seems to validate, that this year is different than last, that breaks the trend. but the large data set you see a movement in that direction. >> but the large data set going

back to 1970, the numbers are that antarctic ice has grown since then. >> the important thing to recognize is when we talk about climate change and disruption you're going to see not just warming but you're seeing strong storms , hurricane sandy and underlying signs, that we do not deny the science of greenhous greenhouse greenhouse gases. >> the planet can't raise its temperature by more than 2° celsius. >> in political terms it's the only thing that anybody's agreed to. some of you may remember that climate summit in copenhagen. there was only one number in the final two-page voluntary accord that people signed. only one number is

-- in it. 2°. >> 2°. the average temperature has only gone up by .8 of a degree, less than that, actually, celsius since 1880. but what's the chance that we're going osee a 2 degree increase any time in the future? >> the reason the film is called do the math, he breaks down these matters in a clear and simple way. to get to this political number that was kind of decided upon in copenhagen although there is no binding agreement here, everyone got together and said this is the number that's too much, we should do what we can to avoid it. but using that number as a guide we were able to look at some data and there was a report by the carbon tracker initiative called unburnable carbon, if you look at the number, 565 gigatons

of carbon dioxide, he if we burn that much we'll get to that number. if we burn 30 gigatons a year -- >> if we're going to burn 565 gigatons in a matter of 15 years. >> in about 15 years we'll be at that 565 number that's going ohit that first number. >> that 2 degrees rise in the temperatures. but then, if that were to happen, i mean, it does seem pretty extreme given how much fossil fuels we've been dumping into the atmosphere in the past hundred or so years. >> i think what's important to remember with this is because it's such a complex system that we're dealing with, we're dealing with the atmosphere of the earth and all these different factors that play into it, it isn't immediately directorially causal. you don't say this is directly attributable to this, we often like to use the steroid analogy to this, you can't point to one

home run, and that juiced player was able to hit that home run because of steroids, they happen more frequently and this person is able to do it more often. i think the same thing with, when we see the underlying science of greenhouse gas works this way, that isn't immediately direct and say today or tomorrow and you look at the terms. >> what about all the cutbacks, the offers, electric cars and all that, won't that have an impact? >> it will certainly help, as bill says he's a professional bummer-outer, this isn't good news most of the time so everything counts. every small battle won, hems, whether it's cpa ratings, tesla happened to get the best rating of any car. >> and one of the things the movie suggests is people

divest their investments in fossil fuel companies. >> yes, one of the things you say when people take charge of their investments, they work on the same level as what they're taking on. obviously, the fossil fuel industry is one of the most lucrative, then -- >> the model was effective? >> the model was apartheid. with that as a model you would be able to replicate this. >> unfortunately, we are right at the end of the show, kelly, jarrod, thank you for being here. >> the show may be over but the story continues. also at twitter, @aj consider this. we'll see you next time.

check check >> offline. healthcare.gov was supposed to be bug freebie -- free by the weekend. why it is still not ready >> north korea - why it is holding an 83-year-old veteran. what he confessed to >> an aircraft crashes into a crowded barn in scotland. what survivors did moments after it happened. hello. welcome to al jazeera america. i'm morgan radford live in