which netted $52 million. i'm del walters, thank you for joining us. we want to leave you with the empire state building decked out in all the colors of the rainbow. have a good night. time to bring back the firing squad. and is the millennial generation just as racist as their parents? >> he's not part of a movement. movement. >> this is a young man that dropped out. >> he is sick and twisted ... >> he's not sick and twisted. >> he's a lone wolf. >> he's not a lone wolf. did you read the ... first in the debate - iran denies wanting them, western

powers suspect it does. we ask why shouldn't iran have nuclear weapons. i'm imran garda, and this is "third rail." . >> the free world cannot allow iran to have a nuclear weapons. >> think of how many nuclear weapons surround iran. why wouldn't it be natural they may want a weapon. >> we must not allow iran to have a nuclear weapon. >> it could lead to a nuclear arms race in the middle east. >> they are a designated state sponsor of terrorism. >> this is a state threatening to annihilate israel. [ chants ] >> we can't get on iran's back and say you can't have nuclear arms, but we can. >> a nuclear armed iran would bring stability to the region. >> you'll never be invaded if you have

nuclear weapons. >> who presents an existential threat to all. we have ambassador, former iranian nuclear negotiator and ambassador to germany, and ambassador lincoln bloomfield, former assistant secretary of state under president george w. bush. thank you for joining us, gentlemen. ambassador, before you think we are insane with the premise, we are asking the question why shouldn't iran have nukes or why can't they. fully understood iran says it does not want nukes. we are asking the question. it's a fair question. if everybody else can, if other countries can, why can't iran j nuclear weapons. >> two reasons why is religious issues, the rainion supreme -- iranian supreme leader, the highest ranking authority issued

a fatwa against all weapons against mass destruction no other countries has a high level religious issued such a fatwa, not muslim countries. second, iran joined npt from the beginning. it was the first country to initiate nuclear free zone, and insisted for over 40 years on this initiative. iranians believe religiously and based on allegations, not only iran, no other countries in the region why is everyone so suspicious of you? >> it is not because of nuclears. it's history of 35 years of hostility and animosity. nuclear is one issue.

terrorism is another issue. regional issues. >> we'll get into some of them. if iran wanted nukes, why shouldn't they be able to be allowed to have them? >> any country should, in theory, be allowed to benefit from nuclear number. the nonproliferation treaty was set up so those that have nuclear weapons should be under a process of getting rid of them, through disarmament, which has been going on for 50 years, those that don't have them should not get them. under that premise, countries should share in the benefits, if they wish. of civil nuclear power. i do not dispute to some respect, it is bigger than nuclear, but it is nuclear. i want to tell you what the chief negotiator, the under secretary of state testifies. but this is clearly an official view.

however, over the past 20 years, it became apparent. as detailed in iae reports, they uncovered the full spectre of the cycle, suggesting an intent that was far from peaceful. >> if iran is doing all of these things. why is the government close to a deal with iran. >> what are your choices? you can negotiate the end of iran's nuclear programme, willingly as an act of state. maybe it will happen by next week. short of that the options are more grim. >> ambassador, at the 11th hour, it seems they come out and says the banking and sanctions must be lifted immediately. the i.a.e.a. is neither independent nor fair, no inspections at military sites - what is he doing? tearing up a prospect of a deal. >> first, let me tell you that

you are wrong. for 11 years, there's no evidence of any diversion towards the organization in the iranian nuclear programme. we have three sets of measures. one, what is related to npt, nonproliferation treaty. iran and the world powers agreed the criteria would be npt. we have seen them. already iran great to the maximum level of commitment. there's nothing beyond the agreements. the problem is with the measures the u.s. and the world powers are insisting beyond nonproliferation treaty, beyond the international rules. >> allow me to interject. looking back at 2003, then negotiator, now president admitted negotiations were a way to stall.

let me quote him to you. he said while we were talking with the europeans, we installed equipment in parts of the facility. you. >> no, you are wrong. i was his deputy. >> explain it to me. you see no daylight between what is going on with the said. >> no, no. i say he has already agreed within the measure - about the measure within the maximum level. he has already agreed with every objective guarantees and non-diversion from heavy water facility, beyond npt. he has agreed about non-diversion from enrichment facility. although beyond npt. what he as not agreed is interrogation of iranian nuclear scientists, you know many iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated.

>> i.a.e.a. is not doing that. >> when they - there is already introduced the iaa, some of them, after they were introduced, before to the iaa, they were assassinated. therefore - and you know iran believes israel and the u.s. has been behind the assassinations. no iranian nuclear scientist would be ready to put his life in danger. he says no inspection to military sites. no other country accepts inspection to religious sites. within protocol at the maximum level of inspection and problem. this? >> your readers can judge whether that is the final word. i think the point about trust is the key here.

the fact that slovenia and indonesia don't go through the same measures, they don't have the same level of nuclear infrastructure, and scientists who are building known and unknown parts of their nuclear establishment. we watched and i witnessed where iran violated norms and conventions. they took over the un convention, and used embassies in lebanon, europe and argentina to conduct terror operations, violating the convention on diplomatic immunity. they cheated on the sanctions on saddam hussein. >> you are talking about human rights abuses, allegations of state sponsorship of terrorism. the saudis want nuclear energy. are you comfortable with that? >> i was with a cabinet official in a private meeting with the crown prince of saudi arabia, prince sultan, who passed away.

he said, you know, it's civil nuclear, if we need to be will adjust. the implication this is a hem against iranian nuclear break outs. when people pontificate that there's a danger in iran, having an apparent weapons programme. activities, which they are keeping out of view of the i.a.e.a., it's not - i don't hear this. >> that happened decades ago, proliferation in the region. speaking of getting it and everywhere else wanting it. israel's nuclear weapons, and the refusal to engage, a great impediment. israel has nuclear weapons, around 80 of them. he's right, isn't he? >> they've been managing this. again, there are five powers, five clubs much ep says it's

unfair for others not to have it. there's no treaty that has more signed up. >> ambassador, we are talking about weapons of mass destruction. iran is the biggest victim for weapons of mass destruction. saddam hussein used chemical weapons, the united states of america for material and technology using weapons of mass destruction. 100,000 iranians killed or injured, and now you blame destruction. >> you don't want to two there. >> you don't agree that united weapons. >> i was in the united states room when the policy was articulated. we talked to both sides. >> the united states secretary sold arms to iran. >> pages of congress report shows numerous export of illegal

chemical material to saddam hussein. and the u.s. supported practically and the u.s. supported the invasion, ambassador, don't forget. arab countries, the allies of the u.s. invaded iran to disintegrate iran, and the support of saddam hussein, invading rain. >> i was in the pentagon after the wore broke out. there was no activity to support iraq's war effort inside iran, you know that we did have some very small - a trickle of support for saddam hussein, which was a life line, it was the same mistake we made in supplying arms to the ayatollah khamenei. my point is let's do this - if and when there's a deal, let's invite congress to open the book all the way and talk about everything that happened in the last 50 years and lay it bear. if we go ta. we can make good judgments about

the negotiations. i want to take a break. coming up, the nuclear haves, and have not, the objective of spreading. has it succeeded. is it fair? >> the treaty was a bargain between the countries that had nuclear weapons, and those that don't. >> five big powers negotiating with iran, for about 50 years they have violated later on... >> the young man in charleston as punishment. >> you call him sick and dementeded as if he has a mental condition. i don't think he's mainstream, i don't think he's an anomaly later, 1200 women from a native community in canada go missing. our correspondent talks to their anguished relatives. >> calling this a criminal where were as stephen harper has, they believe that dismisses the larger

sociological phenomena. >> if it was prime minister harper's daughter, i think thingsway be different.

>> now available, the new al jazeea america mobile news app. get our exclusive in depth, reporting when you want it. a global perspective wherever you are. the major headlines in context. mashable says... you'll never miss the latest news

>> they will continue looking for survivors... >> the potential for energy production is huge... >> no noise, no clutter, just real reporting. the new al jazeera america mobile app, available for your apple and android mobile device. download it now >> al jazeera america, weekday mornings. catch up on what happened overnight with a full morning brief. get a first hand look with in-depth reports and investigations. start weekday mornings with al jazeera america. open your eyes to a world in motion. . >> nuclear weapons... >> it's a distraction. >> it's the foundation. >> nuclear weapons are not necessary for security. >> some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be stopped.

such fatalism is a deadly adversary welcome back, joining us greg tillman, serving as a senior staffer on the intelligence committee and the state department. thank you for joining us greg. you would have heard the first half of the discussion. anything that tickled your fancy from there? >> one of things i'd like to return to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. as the name implies, it was motivated in part by an attempt to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, which in the '60, when the treaty was netted, looked like it would involve dozens of countries, it shouldn't be forgotten that the npt was about vertical proliferation. the accumulation of articles in the united states and other nuclear weapons powers.

that treaty was a bargain between the countries that had nuclear weapons, and those that did not. >> it teems like an old boys club, holding tonne what we have and -- holding on to what we have, and not allowing those we don't like... >> it's criticized for being discriminatory. it contains a movement towards nuclear disarmament. the numbers of nuclear weapons has gone down by a large number since the treaty was netted in 1968. recently, though, when there was a review conference for the treaty, the countries that don't have nuclear weapons raised logical and obvious objections that the decrease is going too slowly, that we are not making enough progress on the nuclear disarmament side. to return to the subject of iran, it's apparent that unlike the nuclear weapons, powers,

they were not powers as part of the bargain in 1968. unlike, israel, pakistan, india and north korea, iran is a member of the npt. unlike the other countries, iran politically and religiously four squares as nuclear weapons and says it's not their intention to develop them. >> is ambassador bloomfield right in putting iran in a class by itself because of other issues, the historical mistrust and it's on a list as a state sponsor of terrorism by the state department and others. >> i probably would disagree with that. iran's conduct, particularly prior to 2003, according to our own u.s. intelligence community, was going over the line, was not fully compliant with the rules of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and iran's safeguards

with the international atomic energy committee. >> do you believe that iran is in. >> both. i believe misunderstood and a lot of misunderstanding and misinterpretation. however, the fact it the u.s. national intelligence in 2006 and 2011 - iran does not have nuclear bomb, there's no evidence of a diversion towards weaponization, and iran has not made decision to make nuclear bomb. let me go back to the main issue, which greg at the beginning referred to. it is clear npt has three objectives. the first is disarmament. the five big powers negotiating today with iran - for about 50 years have violated npt because

they have been supposed to dismantle nuclear weapons. u.s. and russia have about 20,000 nuclear weapons, while npt is 50 years old. second objective is nonproliferation. india, pakistan, israel - they have mass nuclear bombs, hundreds of nuclear bombs, and the u.s. and the five big powers have a strategic relies with the three countries. >> you know as i said before it's not a colouring by the numbers, it's an issue of trust. the united states you say has a lot of war heads, wr in the process of disassembling 10,000 war heads, it's a programme going on president obama pledged $11 million to upgrade. >> we are not building new

nuclear war heads, we've drawn a line on that. the united states is the security guarantor. japan had a passivist constitution. based upon the nuclear umbrella. does that mean we wave the sword over people's head, and threatening nuclear war the way the russians do in the baltics? no, we don't do that. it has a foreign policy contribution. we have to take a more strategic view. the argument that the ambassador is making, you mention chemical weapons used against iran. iran has been, in this day and age, continuing to prop up barb bashar al-assad, as he uses guns. >> chemical weapons iran is against. the u.s. officials know well if iran did not want, bashar al-assad would not agree. >> iran is okay with bashar

al-assad bombing with conventional bombs. >> this is it a war. conventional civil war is something else. we are talking about weapons of mass destruction. >> syria - we have lost the embassy in syria and yemen, where the houthis come south. you know, you can be the judge, and your public can be the judge of whether the activities are helpful. we can face criticism and do better. if you are concerned about proliferation about north korea, israel and others, why is iran losing the trust of the international community and i.a.e.a. by claim thatting it needs nuclear energy for energy. purely a question of trust. either the world trusts iran or doesn't and we'll find out. >> we'll have a final question. nuke loor programs historically have never been the type as described by the worst fears of those that believe iran will get

a nuclear weapon, meaning they've never been a civilian nuclear programme breaking out into a weapons programme. whether it's india, pakistan, north korea or israel or apartheid. it was always something run on a parallel track or secretly. why is it different with iran. why is there so much confidence in the idea that you could get iran to the point where they do more? >> well, you are alluding to one of the real problems with both encouraging peaceful use of nuclear energy, which is an ex-policist objective of the nonproliferation treaty, and preventing the version of spent fuel, of enriched uranium to make fissile material for bombs. in the merging agreement with iran, as ambassador said, there's going to be an

extraordinary level of verification measures giving us a lot of in sight and transparency into iran. in combination with efforts that have already detected things in the last 10 years. would that be altogether reasonable to inspect the military sites, something that the mpt or i.a.e.a. has no right to do. >> well aring some of the expressions of the supreme leader said that the results of the negotiation seem to be a little more nuanced than that we have run out of the time. i have to wrap. thank you very much gentlemen. thank you very much for joining us. the "third rail" panel is next. >> firing squads have been used for centuries and centuries. >> it looks brutal. it may be that a clean shot to the heart is less painful than these drugs or electrocution.

>> is it an oxymoron to talk of a humane execution. >> it is. i'm looking to him saying to my am i in 2015 in america?

welcome back to "third rail," we discussed whether iran should have a nuclear weapon, we'll broaden with iran's uneasy existence with u.s. in iraq. we have carol, jack, a congressman, and a principal at a law firm. and david bows, the executive vice president of the cato institute and author of "the libertarian mind, a manifesto for freedom." thank you all for joining us. jack, let's start with you. the pentagon is trying to sort of pour cold water over the reports of the fact that u.s. soldiers are sharing a base with shia militias who they fought

against during the iraq war. what do you make of this. how bizarre is this. >> i think it is bizarre. it underscores the blurry foreign policy, particularly in the middle east. we are basically cohabitating with shia militia who killed americans. the group, the league of righteousness who bragged about killing five americans on a roadside in 2006. the wounds are fresh. the bigger picture is what is the strategy, what is the objective, what do we tell the young men and women in uniform, why we are doing this. >> the state objective is i.s.i.l. is the threat and the united states will work with whom so ever wants to help them take out the threat. and from the other perspective, shi'a militias, they probably don't love the united states, but will work with them to get rid of i.s.i.l. >> but they are backing bashar al-assad and syria, to say they

are on one side and suddenly pro-american and understand our policy and bought in it - i think it's naive. we see over and over when we train some of these folks and supply them with weapons, five years later, not that long, they are used against us. >> if you don't put boots on the ground it will happen. >> we made a vow to come out. we are there, doubling down, bringing in troops. it's confusing for anyone on the military side. who is the enemy. goes back to vietnam. >> the enemy was saddan, i know, and suddenly i.s.i.s., and if we have to be in cahoots with iran, we'll do that. if we police the middle east. there's not a lot of nice canadian and british troops there to ally with. we'll work with people that are unsavory. out. the tragic shootings in charleston raised questions of a long-held theory that racism

would generations. charged. >> with the murders of nine black people. >> this guy says you are raping our women. that's the narrative that k.k.k. used. >> white people born after 1980 are not much different to their parents karen, dylann roof was a millennial, 21 years old. >> yes. >> he may not be the most representative millennial, he had extreme views. let's look at the main stream. when pole, a widely social logical poll at the university of chicago collected data on racist attitudes, and analysis found that 31% of white millennials born from 1981 and on think blacks are lazy. that's 4% less than the baby

boomers. were americans and the world naive to think that hey, racist are old, and the next generations the kids have open-minded attitudes, and we are sort of marching into this open-minded utopia, if you like. >> yes, it was myopic and naive and a host of other things because we have never dealt with the waste problem in this country ever -- race problem in this country, not since jim crow ended officially, not during regan somics, or this race issue that is deeply woven into the documentary as the flag. there should be a black history month where we talk about martin luther king, and others, it should be part of every day, and slavery shouldn't be about slaves on a ship, and slaves, it should be human being enslaved. the whole conversation is wrong

as it relates to race, and it's knee-jerk and about the third rail, hitting the third rail, getting people emotional, but we don't deal with how to create damning perceptions since birth of a nation through, speaking to a narrative that we don't deal with, from calling people thugs to how we look at dillon, and he had a gun in that car. he didn't have 39 bullets shot into the car, he's dangerous. differently. >> let me say this having been raised in the south, starting out in schools, going to integrated schools and being in the first white class to go to the black high school. great experience. wonderful experience, a fruit basket turn over in culture, in many ways. i - you know, i came out of it a lot more optimistic. i'm a baby-boomer, but the father of millennials. i think the survey is wrong. i

challenge it. i know the survey was done by a well-reported organization. in south carolina, tim scott was elected as a member of congress, an african-american in a majority white district, by republicans. he was voted in a district where... you. >> no. we are talking... ..if we are going to be real, let's have a real conversation. tim scott idea logically doesn't walk in lock step with the majority of african-american. >> do you think they should? >> no, we are not monolithic. ideologically speak, no one wants to be called a racist. to somewhat like window dressing. people say "i voted for obama", but we have more racism over the last 6.5 years than since the '50s and '60s.

>> the president has not shown much leadership. mirror. >> i grew up in the south, i have relatives in the south, and i see change. i can't say i sea the change in the north, i didn't goh up in the north, but i sea tremendous generational change interest my generation to my generation to my nieces. change. >> i'm talking about racial attitudes. before my time. there has been a change. i know that my niece is, and their peers are interacting in a way that we didn't in my way, and did not in my father's day. there's a difference. it doesn't make sense. i don't think you can say was. >> absolutely. >> it hasn't gone away. >> we have a false sense of security after the civil rights bills were mast and martin

luther king was assassinated, cities changed. there's intermingling, but the ideology that lay root to a dylann roof is here and prevalent in our society. we don't deal with it. we cut around the bushes and don't pull up the bush. >> dylann roof, unlike civil rights atrocities in the 1930s, '40s, '50s and '60s, they were part of a movement. >> and he is not. did you read his manifesto. >> he's sick and twitted. >> he's not sick and twisted. >> he's a lone wolf. >> he's not a lone wolf. did you read his manifesto. >> it would bee... >> he dropped out of the ninth grade. no way in the world could that person articulate. of. >> that's my point: the rise of hate... >> he wasn't associated.

>> why are we quick to stamp it down instead of deal with reality. >> there was a movement in the "50, and '60, it wasn't a food crazy people, tv members of legislature. >> how far powerful is it to see a reez fz neo-nazi in swedeb, france, here there's a rise of hate groups, here in the country. the c cc hiding behind certain things, donating to campaigns, people want to give money back. this has gone on. >> c cc i've never heard of it. >> you never heard of it. i've been involved in policies for years ... can you accept that may be the k.k.k. was big back in the past, but is not any more, but there's an uptick, and we are seeing an uptick. >> or changed their face, because it's not expedient to wear a hood...

>> it was the town leaders in a lot of towns. >> no, it's not. it's different. >> institutional racism - you do not have that any more. american. >> you have numbers of african-americans in academic, medicines and business. >> record numbers much african-americans unemployed, and in poverty. >> tim scott... >> you bringing up one person, bring up mia love. and we got a black present. window dressing. >> president obama would not have happened 30 years ago. >> probably not. >> doesn't mean to say there's not progress out there. >> i said we have never had a serious conversation about race, when we do, this is what happens. people do not want to deal with the reality. >> come on. >> no, i'm saying mississippi two years ago, man was run over by a truck. it's not a gun debate. because a group of millennials want to kill black people.

they beat him and ran him over. and james burke was walking home. >> let me welcome that, but to say to eliminate the progress of elected officials. that is why he's relevant, and now he's u.s. senator, but as you know, to say the progress in terms of business and medicine serious... >> i want to move on. >> okay. >> let's shift gearsful south carolina could be blocked from executing dylann roof by european drug companies who won't sell chemicals for lethal injection. is it time to look at another method of execution. >> dylann roof charged with nine counts of murder. >> absolutely want him to have the death penalty. >> it's an issue. shortage. >> south carolina ran out of lethal injection drugs. >> it races the question of squad.

humane. >> there's no fun way to die david, governor nicky hayley - they wap the death penalty -- want the death penalty for dylann roof. they don't have the drugs. people suggest might not the firing squad - utah is bringing it back. what do you think? >> i don't think america will go back to the firing squad. there's less support for the death penalty. it looks brutal. it may be that a so the to the heart is less painful drugs. >> we are not going to do it. >> people are suffering for 20-30 minutes. >> we are not going to do it. i suspect the revelations about difficulties with the drugs and that you are getting, getting them from europe means we'll move away from the death penalty. >> it's interesting that you

cite people having a problem with the death penalty, and the shift in not wanting the death penalty as a reason for not going for a particular method. >> i would say that americans are not going to look fondly on squads. >> you know, i like to bring in the victims here. i really think that that it's a fast way to die. that's why we moved towards, like, the trick chair, and the moved away from hanging and so north. i think that, frankly, there is a lot of support for the death penalty out there. that it's something like 60% approval. and the united states - there's a pupil - 66% supported the death penalty, it's a low today. it's a 40 year low, but remember the firman case in 1972 outlawed

the death penalty for a period of time. there was a belief in the mid '80s, that the death penalty was obvious. people wept back to it. i would say when it comes to the death penalty, that american mood swings, and i'm not sure that that pendulum is all the way over there. >> it's the height of hypocrisy to talk about a firing squad when this man was a one-man firing squad. >> that may be an eye for an eye and tooth for the tooth, not that i'm advocating it. >> it's not honoring the souls of those that prayed with him. whose family came to court forgiving the young map. one mother said every fibre of her body is if pain, yet i forgive you. if we honour the christian values, how much hypocritical spirit are we putting to put squad. >> let me say this.

firing squads have been used for centuries and centuries. >> your argument is that it's used, we should bring it back. >> it's so barbaric. if you look at the guillotine, last used in 1977. it's not an ancient medieval weapon, but it was fast and painless death. and that was as opposed to some of the torturous methods, including practices in asia, crushing by an elephant. so the idea behind to me a firing squad is it's fast. >> i have seen fascinating things in the crime and punishment museum in d.c. looking at modern methods, is it execution. >> it is. i'm looking at him wondering if i'm in 2015 in america. someone. >> what is the purpose of a death

penalty, is it a deterrent or painless. >> it does, it's punishment for people like a sick demented young man. >> you call him sick and demented as if he has a mental condition. i don't think he's main stram. i don't think he's an anomaly. >> do you think the uni bomber was an outlier. >> he may have been. >> if you read his manifesto, it manifesto. >> definitely that. >> does that mean he represents environmentalists. he's deranged. >> i understand the desire to do this. that. >> i don't think it's right. >> okay. opinion. >> let's move on. research find the earth is warmer than ever. why isn't the science enough to

convince skeptics. >> 14 of the 15 hottest years come in the 21st century. there's not agreement around what is causing this. >> 97% of climate science agrees this is the cause. >> we here 2014 is the wamest year op record. do we know what this is. >> huge numbers don't believe it's a scientific issue, it's a political one. >> we have overwhelming evidence, scientific consensus that the earth is warming and we are doing it to ourselves. >> let me arriving you this: when people say this is settled, what is it that is settled. you have repeated two of them. one is that the chiment is changing -- climate is changing. we can agree that. number two, it caused by man? >> only 52% of the scientists in the american meteorological society agree with that. that is not a consensus, and

then the third thing is is it catastrophic. there's no consensus on that. the meteorological society - that survey was very important. and is it showed... >> you are coming from a political and ideological point of view. you didn't approach the sceptical of the science. >> no. and me brought up... >> it's a cop trarian view point in laxistically with the republicans much. the e.p.a. is political. republican, they can get democrat, depending who the president is. >> when they say fracking a safe, you are cool with that. >> i'm not sure that they said it. they said it's not as gaming... >> you are fine with that. epa. >> the debate is political, it's about lobby, money, people. >> isn't the science supposed to rise above.

>> when we are intelligent. yes. if there's a question where we have something to do, whether it's the drought in california, or floods in houston, shouldn't we air on the side of caution? >> we should air on side of caution and learn about the science as much as we can. >> there's legitimate studies, not the ones you trump out. you can find a study for etch. >> who is running it. i'm asking that question. who is funding the studies. at the end of the day all the studies, that you are citing, that imran is citing are coming from government funded science. that doesn't make them wrong. >> billions and billions of dollars are spent to advocate an alarmist position. that doesn't make it right. once again - what is the game in making you socially conchess. when you recycle you turn off the lights, what is the gain in duping us into it. >> more power for the

government. the main point i make is i don't know a scientist that disagrees that the earth is warming. they are not skeptical of that. few are skeptical that there is some human agency. it's not true we've had 14 of the hottest years ever. it's 14 of the hottest years on record. >> majority says greenhouse >>. >> into no, not saying that, we are go through cycles, and the models are based on computer models. do you know what happens with computer models. they say the earth is warming like this, but it's only been warming like this. the models are wrong. when the models tell you what it's going to be 20-50 years from now, but are wrong. we can't make the policy. >> why is there opposition to this. it seems as if you have

einstein's theory of relativity. and the fact that nothing can exceed the speed of light. to measure. >> let me... why is it a cherry-picking here. >> you are basing it on the failed. >> this is not new. i can tell you it is so difficult on climate change to get decent answers because there are revenue streams, whether it's expands the government. >> the revenue streams are fossil fuels. >> with the battery. ultimately, if we do care about people and ourselves, i don't see the harm in acting people to be more socially conscious when we dispose of waste and use energy. our economic growth - send a job

overseas hurts poor people poor. >> sending jobs overseas... >> oh, my goodness. >> you can do that. the reality is, the reality is the country is suffering because of some of things that may be we are doing. why not try to be conscientious. >> it will cost people jobs. >> researchers found that the u.s. could cut carbon pollution by 40% by twich levels, creating an increase of 2.7 jobs, cutting unemployment by 1.5%. >> clean energy jobs. >> and the global commission... >> and you know what. if you eliminated farm machinery you could create 60 million jobs, and you don't want to do that because it destroys our standard of living. >> i'll let that be the time word. thank you so much all of you for your time. up next - in our field notes anger north of the border.

amid poverty, murder and missing women. >> one woman pulled me aside and said i think the people killing our people is us. >> explorer and environmentalist jean-michel cousteau. >> we are visitors and we need to respect that. >> surprising secrets of the ocean. >> if it wasn't for the ocean, we would have a lot of problems today. >> and the harsh reality facing our planet. >> enough is enough. >> i lived that character. >> we will be able to see change.

test. test.

only on al jazeera america o nearly 1200 can aid yen women have gone missing aring disappeared or murdered since the 1980, seen as a cultural tragedy. individuals crimes have been investigated by authorities, calls for a national inquiry have been refused by the canadian government. john hendren spoke with members of the community. police in canada have been

investigating the disappearances and murders. seems like the community was more. what do they want? >> the aboriginal community wants to feel like a larger society cares about the problem and wants something done about it. that is not what they are getting. what they want is some kind of national investigation of the deaths and distrrnss of these women, and they want the government to -- disappearances of these women, and they want the fost to come up -- government to come up with some suggestions and conclusions. this goes back history. by calling it a criminal problem, as prime minister stephen harper does, it dismisses the phenomena, the causes of the problem. >> let's look at an excerpt of one of reports that you filed on this issue. >> when tina fontaine was found in the red river canadians awoke

to an epidemic of murdered and missing aboriginal girls. >> she opened the doors for all the women out there. indigenous people don't have access to education, reproductive health, food, water, housing. it's those issues that create this sphere of violence in indigenous women and girls. >> reporter: as the calls to treat it is a danger disproportionately affecting aboriginals goes louder, those mourning them is longer you joined some of these people as they were on a boat, dredging the river for bodies, something the police were not doing. what was the process like? >> i was overcome with a sense of hopelessness. we have a little boat.

dragging the river six feet at a time, it was a huge river. the police are driving buy. they are not doing the same thing. these aboriginals are dragging the river, patrolling their own neighbourhood and doing it themselves because they feel like the larger government is not locking at this as a bigger problem, that the larger government is not focussed on patrolling their neighbourhood. i was struck by hopelessness, and the assistance of persistence of the aboriginal community, they are not sitting back, letting this happen, they it. >> we established they want a larger investigation, a systematic change. what do they attribute to being the sort of root cause of the problem. what or who do they blame for all these girls going missing? >> that is a mainful and controversial subject. one woman, a relative of a

missing girl pulled mow aside and said i will not say this on camera, but i think the people killing our people is us. she meant aboriginal people. that's a controversial topic. in a community where there's a large number of deaths, people tend to be murdered in their own communities by those in their own commune yes. aboriginals are saying yes, it may be it's happening within our own society. there's not the help that they are seeking from a larger society here. >> you are doing great work. thank you for joining us. >> that does it for this week's show. the conversation conditions on the website at aljazeera.com/third-rail and facebook and twicer. i'm imran garda,

we are waiting for international bodies to act. activists demand action against israel as it intercepts a boat trying to break the naval blockade of gaza. ♪ ♪ hello, i am darren jordan, you are watching al jazerra live from dough that khabibulin. also on the program tension and fear as voting begins in ba run didburundibut the after con unit won't send observers. the debt rice crits us worsens. and. shock and shame. the family of the tunisian